<p dir="ltr">Abd proposed Bucklin//Score, which he dubbed "evaluative majority approval voting". My first, and still my principal, response was: that's not bad, and if you can build were a consensus behind that, I'll sign on. I'd still like to see Abd respond to that ( and ideally commit to first mentioning a consensus Bucklin proposal once per thread before discussing the relative merits between Bucklin systems) before engaging with the specific discussion below.</p>
<p dir="ltr">My basic response to EMAV specifically is: Bucklin is good and Score is good, so it's not bad, but it's still in some sense the worst of both worlds. Not as responsive or simple as Score, not as exaggeration or chicken resistant as most Bucklin methods, it's just a compromise that will make nobody really happy. Bucklin hybrids can work well; Bucklin//Condorcet, for instance, is in many ways best of both, though its counting complexity is a bit high for me. But if EMAV is better than MAV, then Score is even better; while if EMAV is better than Score, then MAV is even better. </p>