<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'>
I want to emphasize the distinction between speculations and proposals.<br><br>AOC, MTAOC, MCAOC, AOCBucklin, and their automatic (non-optional)-conditionality versions<br>AC, MTAC, MCAC and ACBucklin are proposals, not speculations.<br><br>I prefer the optional-conditionality versions to the automatic-conditionality versions.<br><br>Because the conditional voting methods are offered as optional, offering those ways of using one's<br>Approval vote as voting options in the Approval election doesn't wrong anyone who doesn't choose<br>to use them.<br><br>I sometimes mention speculations too. I'll mention a few at the end of this post.<br><br>AERLO in conditional voting:<br><br>1. Obviously, if you want your middle rating for a candidate to be conditional, then you certainly wouldn't<br>want to give hir unconditional AERLO status. So, plainly, if a ballot marks an above-AERLO candidate<br>as "(conditional)", the AERLO status should only apply if the candidate qualifies for receiving your<br>conditional middle rating.<br><br>2. I suggested that the default assumption for designation of coalition-suitable candidates should<br>be "Above AERLO (or top-rated or top-ranked if the ballot doesn't use AERLO)".<br><br>But, for use in conditional voting, I suggest, for that default assumption, two additional requirements<br>for a coalition-suitable candidate:<br><br>a) must not be a conditionally-rated candidate<br><br>b) must be ranked over the candidate being considered for actually receiving the conditional vote listed<br>for hir on the ballot.<br><br>I mentioned that, in MTA or MCA, when AERLO is used, a ballot's middle-rated candidates could be <br>listed vertically, as a ranking, for AERLO purposes, even though they're all middle-rated. That<br>qualifies as the ranking referred to in b).<br><br>3. Though I wouldn't unilaterally suggest it, AERLO could fairly be automatic at the bottom of any<br>ranking that doesn't choose AERLO.<br><br>After all, you like all of your ranked candidates better than any of your unranked ones. So, in the event<br>that none of your ranked candidates wins, it could only be beneficial to you to move them all up to<br>1st place, for a 2nd count. That could only be beneficial.<br><br>Still, it amounts to changing someone's ranking without their permission. Based on that principle,<br>and wanting to offer AERLO as an _option_, my inclination is to not make AERLO automatic<br>at the end of ballots that don't specify use of AERLO. If others advocated that, then sure. But<br>I wouldn't unilaterally suggest any automatic, non-optional application of AERLO, or any<br>other non-optional modifications of a voted ballot.<br><br>A speculation, regarding #1, above:<br><br>Maybe, for top rating, there could and should be a stronger mutuality requirement, a top-mutuality<br>requirement, before moving the conditional, but above-AERLO, candidate to top, but I haven't<br>looked at if, or how, that could work. It's a speculation. I emphasize that I don't suggest that complication for the<br>poll. And, for public proposals, that would be a _later_ proposal. If such a requirement were workable<br>and desirable, it could be implemented exactly as conditional middle ratings are dealt with in MTAOC.<br><br>Some FBC/ABE Condorcet-like rank method speculations:<br><br>I mentioned that maybe Condorcet could be modified for FBC/ABE methods. Before that, of course Kevin's<br>tied-at-top pairwise comparisons had been suggested for use in such methods.<br><br>Yesterday I suggested MMPO, but with an initial disqualification of Condorcet losers. But that wouldn't avoid<br>Kevin's bad-example, because we could add a Candidate D, whom no one ranks. C pairwise pair-beats hir, and<br>so isn't Condorcet loser. <br><br>Maybe Condorcet (Tied-At-Top), MMPO2 is more promising. I don't know if it would have the desired<br>properties. It's only a speculation at this point.<br><br>Other such speculations:<br><br>1. MinMax Tied-at-Top pairwise defeat? A Tied-at-Top counterpart to MMPO. <br><br>Of course I mean that its pairwise comparisons would be Kevin's tied-at-top pairwise comparisons.<br><br>2. Greatest Tied-at-Top pairwise win?<br><br>3. Condorcet(Tied-at-Top), Top. Among the candidates who don't have a tied-at-top pairwise defeat, elect the one<br>who has the most top ratings.<br><br>I haven't examined those speculations.<br><br>Mike Ossipoff<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br> </div></body>
</html>