<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>Having flunked on a detail Saturday, I will try to do better tonight.</div><div><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><br></div><div>This SODA is a possibility for improving Approval.</div><div><br></div><div>I remain a Condorcet backer:</div><div> . What it offers is valuable to voters seeing the value of ranking in voting.</div><div> . Approval voting is doable within Condorcet (and having full value within its capability) for those preferring to avoid actual ranking.<br><div><br><div><div>On Jun 6, 2011, at 2:51 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote">2011/6/6 <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:fsimmons@pcc.edu">fsimmons@pcc.edu</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex; "><div class="im">----- Original Message -----<br>From: Jameson Quinn<br></div><div class="im">> 2011/6/5 Dave Ketchum<br>><br></div><div><div></div><div class="h5">> > I see this as Approval with a complication - that Jameson<br>> calls SODA. It<br>> > gets a lot of thought here, including claimed Condorcet<br>> compliance. I offer<br>> > what I claim is a true summary of what I would call smart<br>> Approval. What I<br>> > see:<br>> > . Candidates each offer draft Approval votes which voters<br>> can know in<br>> > making their decisions.<br>> ><br>><br>> You are close, but apparently Forest and I haven't explained the<br>> system well<br>> enough. Candidates offer full or truncated rankings of other<br>> candidates.<br>><br>> > . Vote by Approval rules.<br>> > . If there is no winner, then each candidate gets to vote<br>> above draft<br>> > once for each ballot that bullet voted for that candidate.<br>> ></div></div></blockquote></div></blockquote>Exactly what the candidates may/shall do is a topic for later design. It starts with:</div><div> . Before the election the candidates define what voting they will do if lack of winner gives them the opportunity/duty.</div><div> . Voters know of these promises and either do Approval voting or do bullet voting to have the voted for candidate vote as promised.</div><div> . If no winner these extra votes hopefully will see to deciding on a winner.<blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex; "><div><div class="h5">><br>> Candidates may vote any approval ballot consistent with the<br>> ranking above<br>> once for each ballot. They do so simultaneously, once, after the full<br>> results and all candidate's rankings have been published.<br>> "Consistent with"<br>> means that they simply set an approval cutoff - a lowest<br>> approved candidate<br>> - and all candidates above that in their ranking are approved.<br>><br>> > . If a voter is thinking bullet voting, but wants to avoid<br>> the above -<br>> > voting also for an unreal write-in will avoid giving the<br>> candidate a draft<br>> > vote.<br><br></div></div>Instead of an "unreal write-in" it could be a virtual candidate whose name is<br>"No proxy for me" meaning "I do not delegate my approvals to any candidate."<br><div><div></div><div class="h5">><br>> Yes.<br>><br>> You've left out one extra check on this system, wherein the top<br>> two approval<br>> candidates are recounted in a virtual runoff without any "delegated<br>> approvals" between those two.><br>> ><br>> > I do not see the claimed compliance, for voters do not get to<br>> do ranking.</div></div></blockquote></div></blockquote>...</div></div></div></div></div></div></body></html>