<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Forest,<br>
<br>
Why, in this 3-slot method, do you want the winner to be either
the Top Ratings winner or the Approval winner?<br>
<br>
What is wrong with the Condorcet winner?<br>
</p>
<p>Given that you have chosen that the winner be one of two
candidates, how do you justify not simply picking<br>
the one that pairwise beats the other?<br>
<br>
I am allergic to needlessly giving losing candidates any more
power to influence the result than any other voter.<br>
<br>
In my book all acceptable 3-slot methods should meet either FBC or
(3-slot) Condorcet. (We know that meeting both<br>
isn't possible). Your suggested method meets neither.<br>
<br>
49: A<br>
48: B<br>
03: C>B<br>
<br>
In this example A is the Top-Ratings winner and B is the Approval
winner. <br>
<br>
In your "asset voting" runoff A and B both vote for themselves,
but say C is a supporter of plurality voting and so thinks that<br>
A is the legitimate winner and besides, A has promised him a
really good job if he wins office (which A "might"not have<br>
done if C hadn't been a candidate in this election) and so C votes
for A and A wins. <br>
<br>
B is of course the Condorcet winner and in this example all
acceptable methods will elect B. (Otherwise what was the point<br>
of replacing plurality voting?). <br>
<br>
Acceptable 3-slot methods? For FBC compliance I like IBIFA:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">*If any candidate X is rated Top on more
ballots than any non-X candidate is approved on ballots that
don't top-rate X, then<br>
the X with the highest Top-ratings score wins.<br>
<br>
Otherwise the most approved candidate wins.*</blockquote>
<br>
Also good for FBC compliance is "Improved Condorcet", Top-Ratings
(aka ICT).<br>
<br>
For compliance with 3-slot Condorcet I suggest Smith//Approval or
Smith//Top or (at a pinch, for greater simplicity)<br>
Condorcet//Approval.<br>
<br>
Chris Benham<br>
<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 16/05/2019 5:51 am, Forest Simmons
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP29oncjepay2XYiLqetr2SvXSooseDYBXnWS8Z+efoBaEFS9w@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>This is a three slot method: voters can mark candidates
"preferred," "acceptable," or blank (no mark).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>There is a simple, low cost, (but not instant) runoff
between the the candidate with the greatest number of
preferred ratings and the candidate with the greatest approval
(preferred plus acceptable ratings).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The runoff is by candidate proxy, i.e. by asset voting. A
candidate's asset total is the number of ballots (or fractions
thereof) on which she is marked "preferred."</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So if you mark three candidates as preferred, each one of
them gets a third of an asset from your ballot.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In general three slot methods get off to a great start, but
get bogged down in deciding what to do when it is not clear
whether the approval winner or the plurality winner should be
the method winner.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>And every time we propose asset voting we get bogged down
in rules to constrain the candidates to some reasonable way of
using their assets to settle on a winner.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This hybrid method avoids both problems in one fell swoop!<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">----
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://electorama.com/em">https://electorama.com/em</a> for list info
</pre>
</blockquote>
<div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br />
<table style="border-top: 1px solid #D3D4DE;">
<tr>
<td style="width: 55px; padding-top: 13px;"><a href="http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank"><img src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-green-avg-v1.png" alt="" width="46" height="29" style="width: 46px; height: 29px;" /></a></td>
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 12px; color: #41424e; font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">Virus-free. <a href="http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;">www.avg.com</a>
</td>
</tr>
</table><a href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1" height="1"> </a></div></body>
</html>