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

[C.Benham]

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.


Chris Benham




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.
>>
>>         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?
>
>
> 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...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20160909/a8075d82/attachment.htm>