[EM] Forest, re: your wanting to know how *we decide who came closest to beating the actual winner*.

[Forest Simmons]

Steve,

Thanks for your suggestion. It's exactly what we need for the case of MJ.
Now how do we appoly this to other methods?

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 11:00 PM steve bosworth <stevebosworth at hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* steve bosworth <stevebosworth at hotmail.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, January 27, 2020 10:56 PM
> *To:* fsimmons at pcc.edu <fsimmons at pcc.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: Forest, re: you desire for
>
> Hi Forest,
> With regard to your wanting to k​now how *we decide who came closest to
> beating the actual winner*, I wonder if you missed my suggestion to you on
> EM (January 26)?  If not, you will find it below just before the copy of
> your post.  I would very much appreciate your feedback.
> Thank you,
> Steve
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* steve bosworth <stevebosworth at hotmail.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, January 26, 2020 3:31 PM
> *To:* election-methods at lists.electorama.com <
> election-methods at lists.electorama.com>
> *Subject:* Re: Election-Methods Digest, Vol 187, Issue 27
>
> ​
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Election-Methods <election-methods-bounces at lists.electorama.com>
> on behalf of election-methods-request at lists.electorama.com <
> election-methods-request at lists.electorama.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, January 26, 2020 2:40 PM
> *To:* election-methods at lists.electorama.com <
> election-methods at lists.electorama.com>
> *Subject:* Election-Methods Digest, Vol 187, Issue 27
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Is there a standard way of defining "runner-up" in the
>       context of single winner elections? (Forest Simmons)
>    2. Re: Is there a standard way of defining "runner-up" in the
>       context of single winner elections? (Greg Dennis)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
>
> From Steve,
> Below, Forest states that
> *But what I'm looking for is in the limited context of a single winner
> election how o we decide who came closest to beating the actual winner?  In
> other words, who turned out to be the greatest rival of the winner for the
> single seat of a single winner election?*
>
> As far as I can see, Balinski's Majority Judgment (MJ) provides the best
> and simplest answer to this question.  Unlike any alternative method of
> which I'm aware, MJ firstly guarantees that the winner will be the
> candidate who has received an absolute majority of all the votes that grade
> that candidate most fit for the office.  The runner-up would be the next
> candidate who receives such a majority.  I explained this in more detail as
> follows:
>
> Balinski and Laraki  cogently argue *(Majority Judgment *(2010/2011 MIT)
> that rather than asking citizens to rank, score, or mark candidates in some
> other way, they should *evaluate* (or *grade)* them. To do this, citizens
> more comfortably and conveniently grade each candidate’s fitness for office
> as either Excellent (*ideal*), Very Good, Good, Acceptable, Poor, or
> Reject (*entirely unsuitable*). These grades let voters more discerningly
> express meaningful and informative choices than those offered by
> preferences, numeric scores, Xs or ticks.  Grading makes it more likely
> that the highest quality candidates available will be elected: mayor,
> governor, or president.
>
> Each candidate who is not explicitly graded is counted as Reject by that
> voter. As a result, all candidates have the same number of evaluations but
> a different set of grades received from the voters. The Majority Judgment
> (MJ) winner is the one who has received grades from an absolute majority of
> all the voters that are equal to, or higher than, the highest *median
> grade* given to any candidate. This median grade can be found as follows:
>
>    1.
>
>    Place all the grades, high to low, top to bottom, in side-by-side
>    columns, with the name of each candidate at the top of each of these
>    columns.
>    2.
>
>    The median grade for each candidate is the grade located half-way down
>    each column, in the middle if there is an odd number of voters, or in the
>    lower middle if the number is even.
>
> If more than one candidate has the same highest median grade, the MJ
> winner is discovered by removing (one-by-one) any grades equal in value to
> the current highest median grade from each tied candidate’s total until
> only one of the previously tied candidates currently has the highest
> remaining median grade.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2020 13:26:48 -0800
> From: Forest Simmons <fsimmons at pcc.edu>
> To: VoteFair <electionmethods at votefair.org>,  EM
>         <election-methods at lists.electorama.com>
> Subject: Re: [EM] Is there a standard way of defining "runner-up" in
>         the context of single winner elections?
> Message-ID:
>         <CAP29one=
> RjB2HL-eyUctuyC2BBjvyrkjafQqucPPVwRi0GcR6g at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Richard,
>
> Thanks for your enthusiastic reply.  I think it is a very good idea in the
> general context of "how do we define second choice?"
>
> But what I'm looking for is in the limited context of a single winner
> election how o we decide who came closest to beating the actual winner?  In
> other words, who turned out to be the greatest rival of the winner for the
> single seat of a single winner election?
>
> We're not saying that this greatest rival should be the next candidate to
> be seated in a multi-winner election.
>
> For example. in an approval election the candidate with the second greatest
> approval would be the chief rival of the approval winner by any reasonable
> standard, but would probably not be the winner of the next round in the
> multi-winner context because voters who approved this runner-up would have
> the weight of their ballots cut in half for the second round.
>
> So it's not exactly what I was looking for, but very good related
> information!
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20200129/c4070fa0/attachment.html>