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

[Toby Pereira]

On the exclusion thing (or a not by candidates' names), I suppose arguably it's not really a part of the U/P method, because it's a completely detachable module, and something like it could be applied (or not) to any voting system. It's a bit like winning votes v margins. If someone invents a Condorcet method and says it's to be used with winning votes, then it's still the "same method" if someone uses it with margins.

On a related note, I see people talking about MAM a lot - but as far as I can see it's not really a method. It's just a specific form of ranked pairs! 

--------------------------------------------
On Thu, 8/9/16, Toby Pereira <tdp201b at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [EM] Fwd: U/P voting: new name for simple 3-level method.
 To: election-methods at lists.electorama.com, cbenham at adam.com.au
 Date: Thursday, 8 September, 2016, 23:49
 
 This thread is getting increasingly
 difficult to follow. Am I to take it that the definition in
 the bit quoted from 9/9/2016 at 12:39 is the latest
 definition of U/P? As that time is currently in the future
 for the UK and anywhere west of it (and conveniently 9/9
 means the same wherever you go), it should be fairly
 up-to-date!
 
 But now I see this bit about having a note by candidates'
 names if they got majority unacceptable in the last election
 - what is this madness? What does this achieve? Presumably
 most candidates standing would get majority unacceptable as
 it would probably be most people's default rating. Obviously
 it's better than excluding them, but unless I've missed a
 chunk of conversation, this seems like a fairly arbitrary
 punishment to hand out to losers.
 
 
 --------------------------------------------
 On Thu, 8/9/16, C.Benham <cbenham at adam.com.au>
 wrote:
 
  Subject: Re: [EM] Fwd: U/P voting: new name for simple
 3-level method.
  To: election-methods at lists.electorama.com
  Date: Thursday, 8 September, 2016, 20:20
  
  
      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
  
        
  
        
  
      
      
  
    
  -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
  
  ----
  Election-Methods
  mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list
  info