[EM] Score Voting and Approval Voting not practically substantially different from Plurality?
jameson.quinn at gmail.com
Tue Jun 25 07:43:44 PDT 2013
2013/6/25 Kristofer Munsterhjelm <km_elmet at lavabit.com>
> On 06/25/2013 02:43 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
>> I've arrived at my destination, so I'll try to process through this
>> thread. It's substantial, so I'll probably have several comments to
>> make. I'll start with a quick response to Kristofer.
>> ... So, for rated methods, I suggest Majority Judgement.
>> I absolutely agree that a median (aka Bucklin) method such as Majority
>> Judgment is a good solution to the problem you're talking about. But we
>> activists really should push for consensus on which of these methods we
>> should talk about, because the differences aren't important enough to
>> justify separating our efforts.
>> I would suggest that we unite behind "Majority Approval Voting" as the
>> exemplary median/Bucklin method. Kristofer: do you disagree? If so, why?
> I haven't really been investigating MAV enough to say if it's got any
> "weird behavior" (asymmetries in tiebreaking, etc). Apart from that, I'm a
> bit conservative with names, but not so much that I can't switch over to
> MAV :-)
> There could be another reason to using MJ, though: it's the name that was
> used in B&L's paper. If you say "MJ", then the people you're talking to can
> go and find the paper - and the experimental results - quite easily. But
> MAV? There's not much out there about it outside of Electorama.
I plan to use it as one option in my upcoming experimental paper, so there
would be at least some academically-citeable (and wikipedia-RS) reference.
> Also, a somewhat more distant objection: I don't really see these methods
> from the "iterated Approval" or "Bucklin" POV. To me, they're rated methods
> that use certain statistical concepts (the median estimator, primarily) to
> be better at resisting strategy (and to handle monotone nonlinear
> transformations of the grade scale). So "Majority Approval" doesn't explain
> my way of looking at the method very well.
I understand. It wasn't my first choice of title either. But it won the
vote, and I value unity more than purity in such questions.
> But: these are objections I can live with. If referring to the method as
> MAV is a good strategy and provides unity, then I will do so. I just
> thought I'd let you know what feelings I notice when I think of "MAV" -
> both the name and the method.
> Thanks for responding.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Election-Methods