<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 abbreviate Middle-When-Necessary as MWN.<br><br>Though, as I've mentioned, mutuality-conditionality a la MTAOC pseudocode, and by MMT, and by GMAT are all (it seems to me)<br>mutually incompatible as options in an Approval election, conditionality by top-count is compatible with each one of those, as<br>options offerable together in an Approval election.<br><br>If, as seems to me now, it doesn't make sense to speak of MTAOC and MCAOC as voting options in an Approval election, then<br>it could be more worthwhile for them to be considered by an initiative committee, when choosing its proposal. Most likely<br>AOC would be a better proposal, though, if anything more complicated than plain Approval is proposed, due to AOC's greater<br>simplicity.<br><br>The other day I proposed Middle-When-Necessary, a 3-slot voting option for an Approval election.<br><br>It's a special case of Stepwise-When-Necessary:<br><br>Stepwise-When-Necessary:<br><br>Unlimited rankings.<br><br>Each ballot gives a vote to each of its top-ranked candidate(s).<br><br>A count is done for each rank position, starting with 1st place. A count is won by its biggest votegetter.<br><br>Any ballot all of whose top-ranked candidates are not currently winners gives a vote to its candidate(s) at the next<br>rank position, and a count is conducted. <br><br>That is repeated till there are no ballots that have a next rank position to give to. The winner then is the candidate with the<br>most votes.<br><br>Of course it could just turn out as an Approval count.<br><br>Advantage over plain Approval voting: If your upper choices are sufficiently popular, the victory chance of one of them is helped<br>by the fact that you won't have yet given votes to any less liked.<br><br>A disadvantage in comparison to Approval is that the strategy isn't known as precisely.<br><br>I don't claim great improvement for Stepwise-When-Necessary (SWN) over plain Approval voting, but the use of that option seems at least<br>a little advantageous.<br><br>For methods of more than 3 slots, conditionality-by-top-count could, and probably should, be replaced by<br>conditionality-by-current-vote-total. The candidate gets your vote only if s/he currently has more votes than<br>any of your top-ranked candidates.<br><br>Maybe Condorcet could have an option, for any particular rank position, to make the listing of a candidate there<br>conditional, where that conditionality is implemented by the ways that I've described.<br><br>For instance, if instead of Approval or top-count, Improved Condorcet were completed in winning-votes sort of way,<br>and conditionality could be specified for any rank-listing of a candidate, it could be called ICWOC (Improved Condorcet winning-votes<br>Optional Conditional)<br><br>I haven't thoroughly looked at that possibility, of course, and, at this point, it's just speculative.<br><br>If it works, its advantage over ICT could be somewhat better burial-deterrence. ...at the cost of loss of simplicity.<br><br>Pairwise count methods are all subject to strategy that the conditional Approval options and MTAOC and MCAOC aren't<br>subject to. Additionally, they're farther from the simple and natural first proposal, Approval.<br><br>Mike Ossipoff<br><br><br><br><br> </div></body>
</html>