<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>
<br>
Jameson--<br><br>You had said:<br><br>
Majority<br>
Judgment has similar advantages to MTA in this case.<br>
<br>
[endquote]<br>
<br>
I asked:<br><br>Does it? Who knows? <div><br>You replied:<br><br></div><div>Anyone who takes the time to read the <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/ridalaraki/majority-judgment" target="_blank">academic literature</a>.<br><br>[endquote]<br><br>Translation: You yourself don't know the answer. <br><br>MJ's advocates are peculiarly reticent about its specific properties, advantages and criterion-compliances.<br><br>Alright, I'll answer it for you. MJ does not have advantages similiar to those of MTA.<br><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="ecxgmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Have its proponents told what criteria it meets and specifically what guarantees it<br>
offers?<br>
<br>
How does it do in the Approval bad-example? </blockquote><div><br></div><div>You answered:<br><br>Same
as MTA. <br><br>[endquote]<br><br>Ok, in other words, MJ doesn't pass in the ABE. Thank you.<br><br>You continued:<br><br>That is, honest-votes will reliably give a good result, unlike
unstable Approval; but strategic voting will lead to failure.<br><br>[endquote]<br><br>Nonsense. That's a remarkably naive statement. In every nonprobabilistic method, strategy is advantageous.<br><br>So you think that you've found one for which that isn't so? :-)<br><br><br></div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="ecxgmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">(to compare it to MTAOC)<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>If you're unwilling to research the
published answers to your own questions, why do you persist in asking
us to look up your alphabet soup in old posts? For instance, I know what
you mean by MTAOC (a system with a strong dishonest-fill incentive<br><br>[endquote]<br><br>In MTAOC, your middle rating of a lesser-evil (B) can't help the lesser-evil beat your favorite (A). And the B-favorite voters reciprocate that middle rating, then it's more likely that one or the<br>other of those 2 candidates will win, instead of someone (C) less-liked by both factions. If it looks as if that would elect A, then the B voters don't benefit from middle-rating A<br>unless they sincerely prefer A to C. Likewise if A and B are reversed in that sentence.<br><br>You continued:<br><br>, but searching past
messages for that acronym just gives the written-out name<br><br>[endquote]<br><br>No, each method's definition was announced in a post whose subject line contained the name of that method, written out,<br>and, in nearly every case, with the abbreviation in parentheses.<br><br></div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="ecxgmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
What majority-rule guarantees does it offer? Does it meet 3P or 1CM?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>You replied:<br><br>It meets 3P, which I happen to remember what it means. <br><br>[endquote]<br><br>The 3P complying methods that I'm aware of all make two special distinctions, usually a distinction between top rating vs rating below top; and between rating vs not<br>rating. MJ makes no such distinctions. So, if it meets 3P, then what are the two protection-levels required for 3P compliance?<br><br>You continued:<br><br>If you <a href="http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/1CM" target="_blank">define 1CM</a> I'll tell you if it meets that.<br><br>[endquote]<br><br>Oh, that's ok. _I'll_ tell _you_: It doesn't. For the reasons stated in my paragraph above.<br><br>As I said, I've been meaning to post my definitions in the wikipedia. Lately I haven't had a lot of time for computer. But I'm soon<br>going to post those definitions.<br></div>
<div> <br>Ok, it doesn't pass in the ABE, and it doesn't pass 3P or 1CM. Well, if we defined a 2P (as compared to 3P), it would pass that, as would Approval<br>and RV. Maybe there should be a 2P criterion. It probably passes WDSC too, and probably FBC. <br><br><br></div><blockquote class="ecxgmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
It probably has a strategy situation very much like that of ordinary RV. The method of summed scores.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>You replied:<br><br>No.
For most voters in real-world studies of MJ, their honest,
not-even-normalized MJ ballot was strategically optimal. That is clearly
far better than Range. <br><br>[endquote]<br><br>Oh, that's different! In MJ, some voters don't have incentive to rate other than sincerely :-) <br><br>And the strategizing voters won't affect the outcome?<br><br>By the way, if you're going to advocate MJ, it needs a better name. Majority Judgement might be ok as a promotional name, but it is not a descriptive name.<br>How about (the obvious) "Cardinal Median" or "Median Cardinal".<br><br>Mike Ossipoff<br><br></div>
<blockquote class="ecxgmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<br><br><br><br>
</blockquote><br> </div></body>
</html>