<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>A humorous (but utterly non-serious) thought just occurred to me:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>What voting method are you guys going to use to elect a name for this new system?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Kidding! </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Wingdings;color:#1F497D'>J</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-ligatures:standard'>-Benn Grant<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-ligatures:standard'>eFix Computer Consulting<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-ligatures:standard'><a href="mailto:benn@4efix.com"><span style='color:#0563C1'>benn@4efix.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-ligatures:standard'>603.283.6601<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'> election-methods-bounces@lists.electorama.com [mailto:election-methods-bounces@lists.electorama.com] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Jameson Quinn<br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, June 17, 2013 1:10 PM<br><b>To:</b> Abd ul-Rahman Lomax<br><b>Cc:</b> electionscience@googlegroups.com; election-methods<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [EM] [CES #8791] Upper-Bucklin naming (was: Median systems, branding....)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>Two points:<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>1.<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>I chatted with Rob Brown about the "upper Bucklin naming" question. His votes were:<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>IRAV: F<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>DAT: B<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>Median Ranking: A<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>Median Rating: A<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>Median Grade: A<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>Cumulative Best Approval (CBA): B<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>I myself would give those latter four options C, C, B, and A respectively.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>Here are my votes on Andy's proposals. I think his point about two words is well-taken, but I'm not going to change my existing votes. Also, I think an appropriate enough acronym could allow 3 letters/words.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#222222'><br><span style='background:white'>-Majority Approval Voting: A</span><br><span style='background:white'>-Delayed Approval Voting: D</span><br><span style='background:white'>-Approval Level Voting: D</span><br><span style='background:white'>-Delayed Support Voting: C</span><br><span style='background:white'>-Majority Support Voting: B</span><br><span style='background:white'>-Support Level Voting: F</span><br><span style='background:white'>-Gradual Support Voting: C</span><br><span style='background:white'>-Gradual Approval Voting: B</span></span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#222222;background:white'>In the spirit of his two-level-only dictum, here are a few more ideas:</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#222222;background:white'>-Cumulative Approval Voting: A</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#222222;background:white'>-Cumulative Support Voting: A</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#222222;background:white'>-Cumulative Majority Voting: B (But "CMV" rings a bell, and I don't think it's just for cytomegalovirus; is there already a CMV voting system proposal?)</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#222222;background:white'>-As above, but replace "Cumulative" with "additive": 1 grade lower.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#222222;background:white'>-ABC (Approval-Based Cumulative) voting: C (I like the acronym, especially if we're using letter grades; but I am not satisfied with this backronym. Anyone else have ideas? Approval, additive; building, based, best, biggest; cumulative, cutoff, classify... )</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>So currently Descending Approval Threshold (DAT) is in the lead with a median of B. Please add your votes before Wednesday; until then, I'll just use my favorite of whatever terms currently lead, but wrap it in "¿?" question marks.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>2.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>I was thinking about how to give a GMJ-like single number for reporting a candidate's results under ¿DAT?, and I realized that the GMJ formula itself could work with some adjustments. The formula is:<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>Median + (V> - V<) / (2 * V=)<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>Where V>, V<, and V= are votes above, below, and at the median.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>¿DAT? can use the same formula as long as you replace V< with some number that's constant across candidates for a given election and median, and replace V= with (Vtot - (V> + V<)). (It could also in principle work for a constant V= if that was large enough, but I don't like that idea as much.)<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>So what should we use for the fake V< for reporting? Using the average (or even better, geometric mean) of the real V< numbers for that election and median would give the most-realistic numbers. But even a simple constant, like 1/(2*number of grades)=10% wouldn't be too bad.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>Anyway, the point is that you could pretty clearly find a way to report ¿DAT? results using one number per candidate, which removes one of my last good reasons to prefer GMJ. And that way comes from GMJ, so my work on GMJ isn't a total loss, which removes one of my last bad reasons to prefer GMJ :).<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>So, pending naming, I think ¿DAT? is the future of Bucklin systems.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>Jameson<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></body></html>