<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
Jameson Quinn wrote (18 Oct 2010):<br>
<blockquote type="cite">I edited Electowiki to essentially replace the
Bucklin-ER article with a<br>
new, expanded MCA article. In this article, I define 6 MCA variants. I
find<br>
that as a class, they do surprisingly well on criteria compliance.
Please<br>
check my work:<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/Majority_Choice_Approval#Criteria_compliance">http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/Majority_Choice_Approval#Criteria_compliance</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Now quoting from the referred-to Electowiki page:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Majority Choice Approval (MCA) is a class of
rated voting systems which attempt to find majority support for some
candidate. It is closely related to Bucklin Voting, which refers to
ranked systems using similar rules. In fact, some people consider MCA a
subclass of Bucklin, calling it <a
href="http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/ER-Bucklin" title="ER-Bucklin">ER-Bucklin</a>
(for Equal-Ratings-[allowed] Bucklin).
</blockquote>
<br>
Who are these people? As I understand it, ER-Bucklin is a method that
uses ranked ballots that allow equal-ranking<br>
whereas MCA is a method that uses 3-slot ratings ballots (but could be
extended to more than 3 rating slots).<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p>Voters rate candidates into a fixed number of rating classes.
There are commonly 3, 4, 5, or even 100 possible rating levels. The
following discussion assumes 3 ratings, called "preferred", "approved",
and "unapproved".
</p>
<p>If one and only one candidate is preferred by an <a
href="http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/Absolute_majority"
title="Absolute majority">absolute majority</a> of voters, that
candidate wins. If not, approvals are added to preferences, and again
if there is only one candidate with a majority they win.
</p>
<p>If the election is still unresolved, one of two things must be
true. Either multiple candidates attain a majority at the same rating
level, or there are no candidates with an absolute majority at any
level. In either case, there are different ways to resolve between the
possible winners - that is, in the former case, between those
candidates with a majority, or in the latter case, between all
candidates.
</p>
<p>The possible resolution methods include:
</p>
<ul>
<li> MCA-A: Most approved candidate (most votes above lowest
possible rating)
</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
Until I read this, the only versions of MCA that I was aware of were
this one and another that differs only by using a hybrid<br>
FPP-Approval ballot that restricts voters to indicating one candidate
as most preferred plus they can approve as many<br>
candidates as they like. (The latter version was an early suggestion
that seem to quickly fall out of favour).<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">MCA-P: Most preferred candidate (most votes at
highest possible rating)
</blockquote>
I've heard of this, as a 3-slot method with a different name. The
strategic incentive for voters to not use any rating-slot<br>
other than the top one is even higher than it is with "MCA-A". <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<h2><span class="mw-headline" id="A_note_on_terminology">A note on
terminology </span></h2>
<p>"Majority Choice Approval" was first used to refer to a specific
form, which would be 3-level MCA-AR in the nomenclature above
(specifically, 3-MCA-AR-M). Later, <a
href="http://betterpolls.com/v/1189" class="external text"
rel="nofollow">a voting system naming poll</a> chose this term as a
more-accessible replacement for "ER-Bucklin" in general.
</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
As I previously implied, this is news to me. How exactly does this
mysterious "3-MCA-AR-M" method work?<br>
<br>
<br>
Chris Benham<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>