[EM] Forest: ER Bucklin vs ATDT (Michael Ossipoff)

[Michael Ossipoff]

Yes, the inbetween candidates are the problem, when there are some who are
almost tops, but they have a flaw, and, due to rivalry, their voters are
likely not vote for your most-preferred candidates.

In the ER Bucklin that I like:

As you said, I'd top-rate the strong top-set & bottom-rate the strong
bottom-set.

As for the inbetweens, the tops-with-a-flaw and untrustworthy voters, I'd,
for each of them, skip a few levels, and rank them below. I'd try to skip
just enough levels so that the candidates better than them would have fully
enough rounds to receive consolidated support from preferers of other
candidates, before a vote is given to the inbetween candidate. The
skipping-distances would be different for the different inbetween
candidates, depending on their undeservingness & their voters
untrustworthyness.

ER Bucklin should have unlilmited rating-levels available. Maybe, instead
of actually showing each level on the ballot, the voter could indicate that
s/he wants to skip a certain number of levels between hir ratings of any 2
candidates.

Michael Ossipoff



On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Forest Simmons <fsimmons at pcc.edu> wrote:

> In XA (aka ATDT) you should vote your Top set at Top, and your Bottom set
> Bottom.  But there is less incentive to vote the remaining candidates near
> the extremes as compared to MJ/Bucklin.
>
>>
>> From: Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
>> To: EM <election-methods at lists.electorama.com>
>> Subject: [EM] Forest: ER Bucklin vs ATDT
>> Message-ID:
>>         <CAOKDY5AOPc1939rf-1sGSsfWMSeLc=5rC8qvL8RwthWkxmZ5WA at mail.
>> gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> Forest--
>>
>> You mathematicians are more versatile than most of us, and can perceive
>> things that for many, are way too confusing. The mathematicians'
>> descriptions & discussions of XA are confusing for me, which is why I just
>> call that method "Approve To Desired Total" (ATDT).
>>
>> The version of ER Bucklin that is now my favorite, with equal-ranking
>> anywhere allowed, and with skipping allowed, and without that automatic
>> skipping that I used to suggest (for preserving MMC) is, of course
>> equivalent to MJ.
>>
>> You said that ATDT is better than ER Bucklin/MJ because, with an
>> electorate
>> polarized about a candidate, ER Bucklin tends to put that candidate at top
>> or bottom, rather than at a more middle place that better reflects hir
>> average likedness.
>>
>> But I _want_ to send the good candidates to top, and the bad candidates to
>> bottom.
>>
>> So how is ATDT better than ER Bucklin, as regards voting strategy?
>>
>> Michael Ossipoff
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-elec
>> torama.com/attachments/20161106/81249bff/attachment-0001.htm>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Subject: Digest Footer
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Election-Methods mailing list
>> Election-Methods at lists.electorama.com
>> http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> End of Election-Methods Digest, Vol 149, Issue 46
>> *************************************************
>>
>
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20161107/cc8cd8c1/attachment-0001.htm>