[EM] Fwd: The Top-Set. Method-Merit.

[Michael Ossipoff]

On Sep 7, 2016 8:11 AM, "Jameson Quinn" <jameson.quinn at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> ...instead of including some dismal pessimistic compromise like Hillary.
>
> This is, of course, moving away from abstract voting theory into concrete
politics. I'm going to follow that move. I don't want this to turn into a
thread on the list, though; so, if you want to answer this, feel free to
respond to individually to me and/or Mike (at the "Janet Robinson"
address), without including the list.

(end quote)

I'm at first replying individually, because you said not to post political
replies.

But I claim that these political matters are crucially and inseparably
related to the choice of voting-system, and so aren't off topic for EM.

So can I forward this reply, including the politics, to EM?

> So, you consider Hillary to be a "dismal pessimistic compromise". It
seems likely you're saying this from the left, as otherwise she wouldn't be
any kind of compromise, but simply the greater evil.

Neither is any good. Both represent only the rich.

" greater"? Hillary makes Donald look like a peace candidate.

>
> In an absolute sense, you may well be right. But I think the relevant
comparison set is that of historical presidents, and perhaps major party
nominees as well.

(endquote)

A book was titled _I've Been Down So Long It Looks Like Up To Me".

Compare one  corrupt criminal to another?

You imply that the historical presidents and nominees you spoke of
represent what we can realistically get

At the least, non-bought candidates and the pro-people, policy-solutions
are excluded from media, including NPR.

Even worse, our vote-counting is unverifiable, and so the elections are
illegitimate.

After both of GWB's elections, Harper's listed much count-fraud evidence.

There's no reason to believe that your historical presidents and
Republocrat nominees represent the best we could get in a legitimate
election.

But yes, the immediate need is to demand and get verifiable count..then we
can benefit from a good voting-system.

I hear terrible pessimism and resignation in your statements.

Give the public some credit:

One of the best could win, in a legitimate election.  ...especially with
honest, open media.

So disregard supposed predictive information, and vote only for what you
really want.

But, right now, yes,  many voters will dismally overcompromise, a good
argument for rankings.



You wrote:

In that comparison set, I'd argue that Hillary is actually among the more
progressive, more honest, and more competent as an administrator

(end quote)

... More honest & progressive than...what?  Ugh.

; and that she's not significantly worse than average in terms of her
inherent charisma and skills as a candidate.

None of which will help the victims of her policies.
>
> Note that I'm NOT saying that she is actually progressive, honest, or
competent in an absolute sense. Far from it. I'm just saying that she is
above average for a successful politician at the national level.

...above average among some crooks who's never win an honest election with
honest media.
>
> If all that's true, why is her approval level among the lowest in history
for a nominee (aside from Trump)? I'd say that she's faced an unprecedented
level of media bias. Her actions regarding Whitewater, Benghazi, the email
server, and the Clinton Foundation have all faced extreme scrutiny, and
while she clearly acted wrongly in some ways, at the end of the day there
are more "troubling questions" than troubling answers. I think that the
average politician has done much worse.
>

See above.

> How is any of this relevant to voting theory? I think that Mike is
suggesting that there should be some kind of absolute cutoff for "honest
approval". And I see the allure of that attitude. But I think that it's
clear that there are plausible sets of candidates among which a progressive
voter would be strategically well-advised to approve Hillary.

...in the belief that Trump could beat Stein in an honest election?

Choosing between Hillary & Donald is miserable, dismal pessimism.

Vote for something you want.

(And I can easily imagine corresponding scenarios where a conservative or
libertarian voter should strategically approve of someone they find
unpalatable.)
>
> I have more to say on this, but I'll continue quoting Mike for a bit
first:
>>
>> Your "bottom-set" consists of everyone who isn't in your top-set.
>>
>> Approval's 2-valued ratings perfectly match the candidates' 2 important
categories (top-set & bottom-set).
>>
>> Approving your top-set maximizes the probability of electing from your
top-set.
>>
>> Approval is the method that asks the relevant question.
>>
>> Based in the above, it _is_ possible to objectively say what the best
method is. It's Approval.
>>
>> Yes, people want to vote not only _for_ their top-set--they want to also
vote _among_  their top-set.
>>
>> In other words, they want it all.
>
> Yes! Of course they want it all! And I think that a system like U/P can
give it all! Your best top-set is "preferred", your broader operational
top-set is "acceptable", and others are "unacceptable".

Yes, in 3 levels. I prefer U/P,
3-Slot ICT, & TTR MGR to Plain Approval.

But fully voting among the top-set needs longer rankings. Sometimes being
able to do so safely needs MMC.

>> That's too much to ask of a voting-system. You'll increase the
probability of electing from your bottom-set.
>
> I have no idea what the logic is here. There is no sense in which U/P is
more likely to elect a voter's bottom-set than approval.

True, but voting a longer ranking is more risky than voting like Approval.

If you rank, & aren't majority-favored, top-set safety depends on counting
on others to use the right defensive strategy.

>
> ....
>>
>> I suggest that the best rank methods consist of 3 Bucklin versions and
MAM. Which to choose depends on what people insist on, and what kind
offensive and defensive strategy is expected.
>
>
> I agree that MAM is good.
>>
>> 3 Bucklin versions:
>>
>> 1. Plain Bucklin:
>>
>> No equal-ranking or skipping.
>>
>> 2. B or A:
>>
>> You can vote Plain Bucklin or Approval
>
> Why would you consider either of these better than something like U/P or
MJ?

Because they meet MMC.

>>
>> 3. ER Bucklin:
>>
>> Equal ranking allowed. No skipping.  ...except that if you equal-rank n
candidates in a round, then the count rule automatically skips n-1 rounds
before giving votes at your next rank.
>
> I don't entirely understand what you mean by "automatically skips n-1
rounds",

If you rank 3 candidates at a rank-level, then the count-rule skips the
next 2 rounds before it gives the vote(s) indicated at your next rank-level.

except that it seems that this makes the system more ranked than rated.

Yes, Bucklin should be a ranking method, for MMC.

...& easier for people.

> I'd say that any graded Bucklin method that uses strictly-above-median
tallies as a tiebreaker — such as, in the simplest-to-describe case, U/P —
is better than any of the three above.

Rank methods are for people who want of need to vote more preferences. Yes.
I prefer U/C, 3-Slot ICT, & TTR MGR.
>
> Not that the above aren't better than many methods. But I wouldn't call
them best.
>
> ...
>>
>> MJ advocates obfuscate it & its strategy, for themselves, by their
non-Bucklin wording of it.
>
> I have sympathy for this criticism, which is why I'm now pushing U/P over
MJ.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20160907/2e8c51b1/attachment.htm>