<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2012/1/11 MIKE OSSIPOFF <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:nkklrp@hotmail.com">nkklrp@hotmail.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div><div dir="ltr">
<br>Forest--<br><br>The Approval bad-example:<br><br>27: A>B<br>24: B<br>49: C<br><br>B's negative score is 49, the number who rank C over B, and also the number who don't rank B<br><br>C's negative score is 51, the number who rank B over C, and also the number who don't rank C<br>
<br>A's negative score is 73, the number who don't rank A</div></div></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div dir="ltr">
<br>B has the lowest negative score, and wins.<br><br>You described a good, diplomatic way to avoid the ABE problem in high-res Score Voting. Of course, in public elections,<br>that strategy could be implemented probabilistically in Approval.<br>
<br>But that requires information about how many votes C will get.<br><br>To me, an FBC/ABE method is one that automatically avoids the co-operation/defection problem,<br>not requiring predictive information on the part of the A voters.<br>
<br>What kinds of FBC/ABE methods are proposed so far?<br><br>Three kinds:<br><br>1. MMPO and MDDTR:<br><br>Advantages: <br><br>Simple and brief definition. A voters can unilaterally establish coalition defeat of C.<br><br>
Disadvantage: <br><br>Criticizable by Mono-Add-Plump or Kevin's MMPO bad-example. Those criticisms don't <br>describe genuine problems. They don't amount to strategy problems for voters. They don't prevent the<br>
electorate from getting changes that they want. But they could be used by opposition to distract<br>voters from the important considerations.<br><br>2. Conditional methods such as MMT, GMAT, AOC, MTAOC, MCAOC, AOCBucklin, AC, MTAC, MCAC <br>
and ACBucklin:<br><br>Advantages:<br><br>Avoids criticisms of #1. Though MMT doesn't meet Mono-Add-Plump, that criticism is<br>easily answered for MMT. The other conditional methods don't have even that criticism, or the<br>
Kevin's MMPO bad-example criticism eitiher.<br><br>These methods are simple, and follow from Plurality and Approval in a simple, obvious and natural <br>way. Their avoidance of the co-operation/defection problem, too, is obvious, simple, natural and <br>
straightforward, as is its motivation.<br><br>These methods can be offered as _options_ in an Approval election. For example, all of them other<br>than MMT and GMAT can be offered together as options in an Approval election.<br>
<br>For the methods other than MMT and GMAT, the conditionality can be optional by candidate.<br><br>Disadvantages:<br><br>One disadvantage: Chris doesn't like them.<br><br>Chris doesn't like them because he evidently doesn't like coalition or conditionality (though any<br>
method which, in the ABE, defeats C only if the B voters co-operate is conditional too.<br><br>The rule-explicitness of the conditional methods' conditionality is what makes their avoidance of<br>the co-operation/defection problem simple, straightforward and natural.<br>
<br>Chris doesn't like MMT because of its noncompliance with Mono-Add-Plump,<br>though that criticism is easily answered.<br><br>3. Methods using Kevin's tied-at-top comparison:<br><br>Several have been suggested. No one has claimed that any of them have the desired properties.<br>
They're all speculative. <br><br>Advantages:<br><br>At least some of them elect A in the standard ABE. In other words, like MMPO and MDDTR, the A <br>voters can defeat C by unilateral coalition support. They probably avoid the criticisms that are<br>
used against MMPO and MDDTR.<br><br>Disadvantages:<br><br>Too complicated and wordy of definition.<br><br>They're only speculations, as of this time.<br><br>I suggest that the conditional methods are the winners.<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
</font></span></div></div></blockquote><div><br>Again, you are leaving out delegated methods; that is, SODA. It's fine if you think that delegation is unacceptable, or for some other reason still think conditional methods are best; it is not OK to persistently ignore the reality that SODA handles FBC and ABE. In fact, for the chicken dilemma / ABE, SODA clearly gets better results than any of the other methods you've mentioned; that is, it solves the problem with less real-world risk of accidentally electing C.<br>
<br>Jameson<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div dir="ltr"><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>Mike Ossipoff<br>
<br><br><br><br> </font></span></div></div>
<br>----<br>
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a href="http://electorama.com/em" target="_blank">http://electorama.com/em</a> for list info<br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>