[EM] Score Voting and Approval Voting not practically substantially different from Plurality?

[Jameson Quinn]

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.

Jameson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20130625/1e88ae6e/attachment-0004.htm>