<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/9/2016 12:39 AM, Jameson Quinn
wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><span class="">The main advantage of U/P
voting over other systems like MJ or MCA is simplicity of
description. So I'm going to try to describe it as simply as
possible.
<div><br clear="none">
</div>
<div>To vote, you rate each person running as "preferred",
"acceptable", or "unacceptable". You can rate any number at
each level.</div>
<div><br clear="none">
</div>
<div>If more than half of voters rate a person "unacceptable",
that person can't win, unless the same is true of all the
people running. Of those remaining, the winner is the one
rated "preferred" by the most voters.</div>
<div><br clear="none">
</div>
</span></blockquote>
<br>
C: By this definition, the U/P method uses a simple 3-slot ballot
just like MTA and MCA.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><span class="">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
C: Again, I'd be interested in seeing a plausible example
of when U/P doesn't elect the Approval winner.<br>
<br>
Easy.<br>
20: A>>B>C<br>
35: B>A>>C<br>
45: C>>A=B<br>
<br>
Threshold in approval is >>. In U/P, voters are as
expressive as possible.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</span>
C: On 3-slot ratings ballots, how are the 20 A supporters able
to vote one unapproved candidate above the other?</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">On the 3-slot ballots, they vote A>B.
On the 2-slot ballots, they vote A. These are perfectly
consistent.</blockquote>
<br>
C: But above you are suggesting that U/P somehow uses a both a
2-slot ballot and a 3-slot ballot. Which is it?<br>
<br>
Actually it seems to me that the stripped-down 3-slot version (if
default rating is "Unacceptable") is actually the same method<br>
as MTA. "Unacceptable" is just the inverse of "Approved". Any
candidate who doesn't get a majority "Unacceptable" score must<br>
get a majority Approval score. <br>
<br>
I prefer MTA's more positive wording. In U/P it seems as though
the middle rating slot doesn't do anything.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><span class="">Any candidate, including an
incumbent, who had gotten over 50% "unacceptable" in the prior
election would have a note to that effect next to their name
on the ballot. (In prior messages, I'd suggested not allowing
them on the ballot. I now think that allowing them on, but
with a note, would be better.)</span></blockquote>
<br>
C: Yes, that is far less draconian, a big improvement, and not a
big deal. I suppose there's nothing wrong with a bit of history.<br>
<br>
Chris Benham<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<br>
</body>
</html>