[EM] SARA voting: easier-to-describe MAS

Michael Ossipoff email9648742 at gmail.com
Wed Oct 26 13:26:32 PDT 2016

Estimator is a better word. I included D1 (sincere Score) among the methods
by which I compared the candidates in Forest's example.

We might disagree on what voting system to use in Utopia.   ...a situation
we aren't likely to have to deal with anytime soon.

I completely agree with, applaud and appreciate CES's advocacy of Approval
and Score. I appreciate the work that they do.

I consider Approval & Score the best methods.

...except that there's at least sometimes a case for using MMPO, because of
its CD.

Reasons to not propose MMPO:

* It has no use precedent.

* It has some strongly-felt criticisms that would have to be answered,
and which would give an advantage to opponents, who have more media-access
than reform-advocates have.

I suggest proposing Approval, Score, &/or Bucklin.

I suggest that the best initial proposal, to the public &/or an initiative
proposal committee, is a several-methods proposal that describes and
advocates several methods, offering them all as proposals

That proposal should include Approval, Score, & Buickliln.

...and maybe MMPO, only if you're willing to include, in the proposal, the
objections to MMPO, and the answers to them.

But maybe, because MMPO has no use-precedent, and because pairwise-count
methods have no use precedent, and because of the need to answer those
objections to MMPO, it might be better to leave MMPO out of the proposal,
even at the start.

Of course the familiar objections to Approval should be answered in the
proposal too. CES's website does a good job of that.

Michael Ossipoff

On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Jameson Quinn <jameson.quinn at gmail.com>

> 2016-10-26 14:29 GMT-04:00 Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>:
>> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 1:07 PM, Jameson Quinn <jameson.quinn at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> My overall point is that, while VSE does not directly and precisely
>>> measure the true "goodness" of the election outcome, if done carefully and
>>> if assumptions are varied, it gives us the best and least-biased measure we
>>> have of that goodness.
>> It isn't a measure of goodness at all, as my homeless-man/billionaire
>> example shows.
> OK, do you prefer the technical term "estimator"? I was trying to avoid
> jargon, but that's what I meant.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20161026/732ee55d/attachment.htm>

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list