<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On Jul 8, 2011, at 12:47 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">I'm sorry, but aaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggghhhhhh.<div><br></div><div>I think that people on this list are smart, but this is pathetic. I don't mean to be hard on Dave in particular. But why is it impossible to get any two of us to agree on anything? I want to make a list of systems which are</div> <div><br></div><div>1. Commonly agreed to be better than approval.</div><div><br></div></blockquote>We pretty much agree that approval is a step up from plurality - but most of us agree that we want a bigger step - but have trouble agreeing how to do that.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>2. Commonly agreed to be simple for an average voter to feel that they understand what's going on.</div></blockquote><div><br></div>Voters should understand, but not necessarily be ready to do for themselves - leave that to whoever gets assigned to build the system.<br><blockquote type="cite"><div><br></div><div>I am not asking each person who responds to choose the best or simplest system according to them. I'm asking everyone to vote in <a href="http://betterpolls.com/do/1425">the poll</a> and approve (rate higher than 0) all systems which meet those two very low bars. Hopefully, the result will be a consensus. It will almost certainly not be the two best, simplest systems by any individual's personal reckoning.</div> <div><br></div><div>As to the specific comments:</div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">2011/7/8 Dave Ketchum <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:davek@clarityconnect.com">davek@clarityconnect.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"> <div style="word-wrap:break-word">What I see:<div>. Condorcet - without mixing in Approval.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>You need some cycle-breaker. Implicit approval is the only order-N tiebreaker I know; fundamentally simpler than any order-Nē tiebreaker like minimax. You don't have to call it approval if you don't like the name.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>When you look close:</div><div>. If approval thinking could get involved when there is a cycle, we must consider whether this will affect voters' thinking.</div><div>. Will not the approval thinking affect what is extracted from the ballots.</div><div><br></div><div>While there are many methods for resolving cycles, might we agree on:</div><div>. Each cycle member would be CW if the other cycle members were set aside - why not demand that the x*x matrix that decided there was a cycle be THE source for deciding on which cycle member should be winner.</div><div>. Remember that, when we are electing such as a senator or governor, retrieving new information from the ballots is a complication.<br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="gmail_quote"> <div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>. SODA - for trying, but seems too complex.</div></div></blockquote> <div><br></div><div>I disagree, but I'm biased. I feel that "approve any number of candidates or let your favorite candidate do it for you; most approvals wins" is easy to understand. But I can understand if people disagree, so I'm not criticizing this logic.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Your favorite candidate for, hopefully, getting elected is not necessarily one you would trust toward getting a good substitute elected.<br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="gmail_quote"> <div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>. Reject Approval - too weak to compete.</div></div></blockquote> <div><br></div><div>Worse than plurality????????</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>No - but we should be trying for something better.<br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div>JQ</div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></body></html>