[EM] Fwd: U/P voting: new name for simple 3-level method.
cbenham at adam.com.au
Thu Sep 8 14:13:07 PDT 2016
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?
J:3 slots. Where and how do I suggest otherwise?
C: I pasted in where you wrote (in a message you said I was free to send
to EM) this:
> J: "On the 3-slot ballots, they vote A>B. On the 2-slot ballots, they
> vote A. These are perfectly consistent."
C: That was in response to me asking you how, in an example you gave,
how some voters were able to vote one
"unacceptable" candidate above another (they voted A>>B>C).
J: In MTA, if no candidate is majority preferred and several are
majority approved/acceptable, the most approved wins.
C: No, that is MCA.
MTA says that if the most top-rated candidate is top-rated by a majority
then s/he wins, otherwise if more than one candidate
is approved (voted above bottom) on a majority of ballots then the one
of them that is most top-rated wins, otherwise the most
approved candidate wins.
And I now notice that is that last clause that makes it different from
U/P. When no candidate is majority approved it can give
a different result.
I would say usually the Approval winner pairwise-beats the Top-Ratings
winner, and of course is more "broadly supported".
MTA (with default rating bottom) I think is my favourite of the methods
that fail Irrelevant Ballots.
On 9/9/2016 4:58 AM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
>> C: Again, I'd be interested in seeing a plausible example of
>> when U/P doesn't elect the Approval winner.
>> 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?
> 3 slots. Where and how do I suggest otherwise?
> 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.
> Not the same. In MTA, if no candidate is majority preferred and
> several are majority approved/acceptable, the most approved wins; in
> U/P, the most preferred wins. This is the only difference, aside from
> secondary issues like ballot design. I believe U/P is better in this
> case as it makes a chicken strategy harder to pull off successfully; a
> clean cliff rather than a slippery slope.
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
> Version: 2016.0.7752 / Virus Database: 4649/12972 - Release Date: 09/08/16
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Election-Methods