<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On Aug 27, 2010, at 2:41 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">This thread has touched several points.<div><br></div><div><b><span style="font-size:large">Branding</span></b></div><div><br></div><div>I'm not particularly fond of "TRC" as a name for Condorcet. Ideally, a name should give some idea of how the system actually works. That was where my "VOTE" branding idea came from (Virtual One-on-one Tournament Election). Other ideas along those lines:</div></blockquote><div><br></div>I just thought of an alternative, but leave this topic open: Full Ranked Choice.</div><div><br></div><div>I am still open to thought on this, but the method leans toward combining simple rules with power. Stepping up from starters:</div><div> Plurality - voter ranks ONLY ONE candidate.</div><div> Approval - voter ranks one or more, but all with same rank.</div><div> TRC/FRC - voter ranks one or more, with same or different ranks.</div><div> Each voter is permitted at least one write-in. Each candidate voted by write-in has same right to win as if nominated. Can one candidate be voted for partly as nominated and partly via write-in? I lean toward no, but am not decider on this.</div><div> Each pair of candidates is in a race and leader awarded one point for ranking if one ranked, or for being ranked higher if both ranked by a voter.</div><div> Often one will be ranked the higher of the pair in all of that candidate's races. </div><div> If no such, likely there will be a cycle such as A>B>C>A. The method used must provide for a winner for this, but TRC/FRC does not yet specify what to do.</div><div> Other than such wins or cycles - not considered yet.</div><div> IRV - rejectable for minor restrictions on ballot, and major difficulties caused by not reading all that the voter votes.</div><div> Other ranked choice such as Borda or Bucklin, I claim the above win for simplicity and ability, lack of restrictions on ranking when a ranking is permitted, count of a ranking varies here for context, etc.</div><div> Other, such as score.</div><div> PR - worth considering for legislatures, etc. I am arguing for such as mayor.</div><div>...</div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><br></div><div><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">Criteria</span></b></div><div><br></div><div>Bayesian regret is absolutely a fundamentally-important criterion for evaluating voting systems. However, it is not the only criterion. Neither is it entirely objective, since any actual Bayesian regret measure depends on a true-preference model and a strategy model, both of which are inevitably debatable. I don't think it's helpful to try to use some specific set of Bayesian regret measures as a be-all-and-end-all argument. They may be decisive for you, and it's helpful if you say so; but they won't, nor should they, stop other people from taking other positions.</div> <div><br></div><div><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">"Let's just pick one system we can all support"</span></b></div><div><br></div></blockquote>We are not ready - but should be discarding the rottenest lemons.<blockquote type="cite"> <div><br></div><div>JQ</div></blockquote></div><br></body></html>