# [EM] Fwd: U/P voting: new name for simple 3-level method.

C.Benham cbenham at adam.com.au
Thu Sep 8 12:20:05 PDT 2016

```On 9/9/2016 12:39 AM, Jameson Quinn wrote:

> The main advantage of U/P voting over other systems like MJ or MCA is
> simplicity of description. So I'm going to try to describe it as
> simply as possible.
>
> To vote, you rate each person running as "preferred", "acceptable", or
> "unacceptable". You can rate any number at each level.
>
> If more than half of voters rate a person "unacceptable", that person
> can't win, unless the same is true of all the people running. Of those
> remaining, the winner is the one rated "preferred" by the most voters.
>

C:  By this definition, the U/P method uses a simple 3-slot ballot just
like MTA and MCA.

>     C:  Again, I'd be interested in seeing a plausible example of when
>     U/P doesn't elect the Approval winner.
>
>     Easy.
>     20: A>>B>C
>     35: B>A>>C
>     45: C>>A=B
>
>     Threshold in approval is >>. In U/P, voters are as expressive as
>     possible.
>
>
> C: On 3-slot ratings ballots, how are the 20 A supporters able to vote
> one unapproved candidate above the other?

> On the 3-slot ballots, they vote A>B. On the 2-slot ballots, they vote
> A. These are perfectly consistent.

C: But above you are suggesting that U/P somehow uses a both a 2-slot
ballot and a 3-slot ballot.  Which is it?

Actually it seems to me that the stripped-down 3-slot version (if
default rating is "Unacceptable") is actually the same method
as MTA. "Unacceptable" is just the inverse of "Approved".  Any candidate
who doesn't get a majority "Unacceptable" score must
get a majority Approval score.

I prefer MTA's more positive wording.  In U/P it seems as though the
middle rating slot doesn't do anything.

> Any candidate, including an incumbent, who had gotten over 50%
> "unacceptable" in the prior election would have a note to that effect
> next to their name on the ballot. (In prior messages, I'd suggested
> not allowing them on the ballot. I now think that allowing them on,
> but with a note, would be better.)

C: Yes, that is far less draconian, a big improvement, and not a big
deal.  I suppose there's nothing wrong with a bit of history.

Chris Benham

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20160909/de5e2cdd/attachment.htm>
```