<div dir="ltr"><div>Chris, your point about pushover strategy is a good one.  I was making the suggestion in an effort to persuade Steve.</div><div><br></div><div>Another example which demonstrates problems with MJ is the following:</div><div><br></div><div>101: A > B > C > D > E > F > G</div><div>101: B > A = C > D > E > F > G</div><div>101: C > B = D > A = E > F > G</div><div>050: D > C = E > B = F > A = G</div><div>099: E > D = F > C = G > B > A</div><div>099: F > E = G > D > C > B > A</div><div>099: G > F > E > D > C > B > A</div><div><br></div><div>which is taken from <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_judgment#Outcome_in_political_environments">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_judgment#Outcome_in_political_environments</a> .  Majority Judgment selects B while Condorcet (or MCA/Bucklin) selects C, who seems to be minimizing variance.</div><div><br></div>Smith//Relevant-Ratings is an interesting method (essentially what Chris was suggesting earlier).  It seems to be able to handle several burial attack strategies successfully.</div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 8:26 AM C.Benham <<a href="mailto:cbenham@adam.com.au">cbenham@adam.com.au</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
  
    
  
  <div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
    <p>I was going to type simply "Good question."<br>
      <br>
      One of the major justifications MJ has is that it  (like Relevant
      Ratings and IBIFA and Bucklin and Approval)<br>
      meets the Favorite Betrayal Criterion (aka FBC) which isn't
      compatible with Condorcet.<br>
      <br>
      In other words, MJ's  (main) excuse for failing Condorcet is that
      it meets FBC.<br>
    </p>
    <p>But when you add a 2-candidate runoff you always have a possible
      Push-over incentive and so no<br>
      compliance with FBC.<br>
      <br>
      And so the whole thing becomes a weird method that meets Condorcet
      but probably fails Smith.<br>
      <br>
      Chris Benham<br>
      <br>
    </p>
    <div class="gmail-m_6078095119902729035moz-cite-prefix">On 18/06/2019 2:54 pm, Ted Stern wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite">
      
      <div dir="auto">
        <div><br>
          <br>
          <div class="gmail_quote">
            <div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Jun 17, 2019,
              18:51 robert bristow-johnson <<a href="mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com" target="_blank">rbj@audioimagination.com</a>>
              wrote:<br>
            </div>
            <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
              <p><br>
                <br>
                ---------------------------- Original Message
                ----------------------------<br>
                Subject: Re: [EM] (3) Best Single-Winner Method<br>
                From: "Ted Stern" <<a href="mailto:dodecatheon@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">dodecatheon@gmail.com</a>><br>
                Date: Mon, June 17, 2019 5:24 pm<br>
                To: "steve bosworth" <<a href="mailto:stevebosworth@hotmail.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">stevebosworth@hotmail.com</a>><br>
                Cc: "<a href="mailto:election-methods@lists.electorama.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">election-methods@lists.electorama.com</a>"
                <<a href="mailto:election-methods@lists.electorama.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">election-methods@lists.electorama.com</a>><br>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
                <br>
                > I would certainly favor Majority Judgment over many
                other options, if there<br>
                > were no other choice, though I'd prefer if it
                included a runoff against the<br>
                > Condorcet Winner if one exists.<br>
                 </p>
              <p>I know that i am just stuck in Condorcet land and I
                haven't completely groked MJ (because i don't like the
                ballot), but can you guys help me understand how **any**
                candidate beats the Condorcet Winner in a runoff?</p>
            </blockquote>
          </div>
        </div>
        <div dir="auto"><br>
        </div>
        <div dir="auto">Voters are not rational. Also, in a runoff, they
          are not necessarily the same voters. </div>
        <div dir="auto"><br>
        </div>
        <div dir="auto">
          <div class="gmail_quote">
            <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
              <p>If you have an election method and subject that winner
                of that
                method to the CW (whom must have been chosen from
                ranked-ballot results) in a runoff, does not always the
                CW win?  If so, then why not just elect the CW?</p>
            </blockquote>
          </div>
        </div>
        <div dir="auto">Indeed, that would be the case. But I think
          voters may not realize the ramifications of their selections
          in early use of any new method, so an option to reconsider
          might be beneficial. </div>
        <div dir="auto">
          <div class="gmail_quote">
            <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
              <p><br>
                --<br>
                <br>
                r b-j                         <a href="mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">rbj@audioimagination.com</a><br>
                <br>
                "Imagination is more important than knowledge."<br>
                 </p>
              <p> </p>
              <p> </p>
              <p> </p>
            </blockquote>
          </div>
        </div>
      </div>
      <br>
      <fieldset class="gmail-m_6078095119902729035mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
      <pre class="gmail-m_6078095119902729035moz-quote-pre">----
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a class="gmail-m_6078095119902729035moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://electorama.com/em" target="_blank">https://electorama.com/em</a> for list info
</pre>
    </blockquote>
  <div id="gmail-m_6078095119902729035DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br>
<table style="border-top:1px solid rgb(211,212,222)">
        <tbody><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=oa-4885-b" target="_blank"><img src="https://static2.avg.com/2000491/web/i/ipm/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:rgb(65,66,78);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=oa-4885-b" style="color:rgb(68,83,234)" target="_blank">www.avg.com</a>
                </td>
        </tr>
</tbody></table>


<a href="#m_6078095119902729035_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1" height="1"> </a></div></div>

----<br>
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a href="https://electorama.com/em" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://electorama.com/em</a> for list info<br>
</blockquote></div>