[EM] Fwd: U/P voting: new name for simple 3-level method.
tdp201b at yahoo.co.uk
Sun Sep 11 14:55:01 PDT 2016
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
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>
Subject: Re: [EM] Fwd: U/P voting: new name for simple
To: election-methods at lists.electorama.com
Date: Thursday, 8 September, 2016, 20:20
12:39 AM, Jameson Quinn
The main advantage of U/P
other systems like MJ or MCA is
So I'm going to try to describe
it as simply as
To vote, you
rate each person running as
"unacceptable". You can rate any number at
If more than
half of voters rate a person
person can't win, unless the same is
true of all the
running. Of those remaining, the winner
is the one
"preferred" by the most
C: By this definition, the
U/P method uses a simple
just like MTA and MCA.
Again, I'd be interested in seeing a
U/P doesn't elect the Approval
Threshold in approval is >>. In
voters are as
expressive as possible.
C: On 3-slot ratings
ballots, how are the 20 A
to vote one
unapproved candidate above the
On the 3-slot ballots, they
On the 2-slot
ballots, they vote A. These are
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
default rating is
actually the same method
as MTA. "Unacceptable" is
just the inverse
of "Approved". Any
candidate who doesn't get a
"Unacceptable" score must
get a majority Approval
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
had gotten over 50%
"unacceptable" in the prior
have a note to that effect next to
on the ballot.
(In prior messages, I'd
suggested not allowing
them on the
ballot. I now think that allowing them
with a note,
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.
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list
More information about the Election-Methods