<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div>Ok, thanks, Chris, for settling that matter. I guess we have to reluctantly give up Conditional Bucklin. <br><br>But it would have been strategically great!<br><br></div>Now, here's a question on a related topic:<br><br></div>Say I arrive at the polling-place late. Before I arrive X is winning. I show up & plump for X, and that causes X to lose.<br> <br><br>...is that worse than if I raise X in my ranking, and that causes X to lose? <br><br>If so, why?<br><br></div>It seems to me that the latter is worse than the former.<br><br></div>I if show up late and plump for X, I'm doing two things: I'm adding a ballot, and I'm voting that ballot in a way that clearly should favor X.<br><br></div>If i angrily complain, "Hey, how come, when I arrived and plumped for X, that made X lose??!"<br><br></div>...someone could say. "You didn't just favor X. You added a ballot, thereby spoiling a majority. It has nothing to do with the fact that you voted for X. You could have plumped for any of various candidates, and the effect would have been exacsly the same."<br><br></div>But you can't say anything like to to explain why X lost when I raised hir in my ranking. In that instance, making the ballot-set more favorable to X is the _only_ thing that I'm doing.<br><br></div>So plainly violating Mono-Raise is worse than violating Mono-Add-Plump. <br><br></div>Michael Ossipoff<br><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><br><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 10:27 AM, C.Benham <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:cbenham@adam.com.au" target="_blank">cbenham@adam.com.au</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="m_1670892361041670316moz-cite-prefix">The example I just posted of "IBIFA
with an anti-defection device" failing FBC I'm afraid also works
for both Mike's suggested <br>
"Conditional Bucklin" and Forest's suggested "TopMiddleBottom".<br>
<br>
20: F=C >>B<br>
07: F > C=B (or, for the sake of Forest's method suggestion,
F >> C=B)<br>
25: B<br>
48: W<br>
<br>
All three of these methods elect W, but if the 20 F=C >> B
voters change their rating of F from Top to Middle or Bottom<br>
then the winner changes to B.<br>
<br>
Chris Benham<div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
On 11/6/2016 12:10 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:<br>
</div></div></div>
<blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="h5">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>Hi Forest--<br>
<br>
</div>
By "vote-receiving", I just wanted that to refer to
the candidate who's being considered for receiving the
conditional vote.<br>
<br>
</div>
Jameson has just demonstrated that my Conditional
Approval fails FBC.<br>
<br>
</div>
Most likely, that means that my Conditional(u) Bucklin
fails FBC too.<br>
<br>
</div>
Now, hopefully your proposal, &/or Chris's Unconditional
Bucklin passes FBC.<br>
<br>
</div>
I've just now found your posting. I hope that your method or
Chris's meets FBC.<br>
<br>
</div>
Michael Ossipoff<br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Forest
Simmons <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:fsimmons@pcc.edu" target="_blank">fsimmons@pcc.edu</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote">
<br>
Because it's so brief, let me state the
conditional(u) option, for<br>
Approval, and for Bucklin:<br>
<br>
Approval:<br>
<br>
If a ballot conditionally approves a candidate,
then it gives an approval<br>
to that candidate only if that vote-receiving
candidate has more<br>
unconditional approvals than does any candidate
unconditionally approved by<br>
that ballot.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">I don't see the purpose of the
qualifier "vote-receiving;" It seems to me that if a
candidate has more (unconditional) approvals than some
other candidate, then it is ipso facto
"vote-receiving."<br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_extra">It could also be called
TopMiddleBottom. <br>
<br>
Voters mark candidates Top, Middle, or Bottom., with
default Bottom.<br>
<br>
</div>
In the first round count, ballots contribute support
only to their Top rated candidates. Then if (on some
ballot) a Middle rated candidate has a better chance
of winning (according to the first round totals) than
any candidate that is Top rated by that ballot, then
that ballot promotes that candidate to Top status for
the purposes of the final count.<br>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<div>In other words, the Middle mark is a fall-back or
conditional approval mark.<br>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
----<br>
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a href="http://electorama.com/em" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://electorama.com/em</a>
for list info<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="m_1670892361041670316mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>----
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a class="m_1670892361041670316moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://electorama.com/em" target="_blank">http://electorama.com/em</a> for list info
</pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="m_1670892361041670316mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
</div></div><p color="#000000" align="left">No virus
found in this message.<br>
Checked by AVG - <a href="http://www.avg.com" target="_blank">www.avg.com</a><br>
Version: 2016.0.7859 / Virus Database: 4664/13354 - Release
Date: 11/05/16</p>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>