<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Dear All, </div><div><br></div><div>Dare I say it, it's true anyway, FAB STV can and does differentiate the "two stances" approved and disapproved, "using relative rankings only."</div><div>FAB STV ballot looks like any other preference vote. But a last preference counts just as much against a candidate, as a first preference counts for a candidate -- and so on, relatively speaking. </div><div>FAB STV has the same or symmetric counts for election and exclusion. They are combined to give an overall result, in terms of keep values -- an extension of the Meek method practise.</div><div><br></div><div>FAB STV doesnt require all preferences to be given. Blank preferences count towards a NOTA quota, an unfilled seat. In the unlikely event of your just wanting to exclude a candidate, a last preference, leaving the rest blank, would count as much as a first preference, the other way.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>Richard Lung.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br>On 12 Sep 2021, at 3:13 am, Forest Simmons <<a href="mailto:forest.simmons21@gmail.com">forest.simmons21@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><div><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto"><h1 style="margin:0.8em 0px 15px;padding:0px;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-weight:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:1.85em;line-height:normal;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);color:rgb(35,31,32)">universal domain<span style="display:inline-block;width:20px;height:20px;vertical-align:middle;margin-left:5px;background:right -57px no-repeat scroll transparent"> </span></h1><p style="margin:0px 0px 1em;line-height:1.5;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><span style="color:rgb(60,64,67);font-family:roboto,"helvetica neue",arial,sans-serif;font-size:18px">In social choice, the requirement that a procedure should be able to produce a definite outcome for every logically possible input of individual preference orderings.</span><br></p><p style="margin:0px 0px 1em;line-height:1.5;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><span style="color:rgb(60,64,67);font-family:roboto,"helvetica neue",arial,sans-serif;font-size:18px">So, all ranked equal is a "logically possible preference ordering." </span></p><p style="margin:0px 0px 1em;line-height:1.5;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><span style="color:rgb(60,64,67);font-family:roboto,"helvetica neue",arial,sans-serif;font-size:18px">The main thing I'm wondering is how to modify ASM (Approval Sorted Margins) to make it more broadly acceptable ... and to perhaps comply with Universal Domain as a bonus.</span></p><p style="margin:0px 0px 1em;line-height:1.5;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><span style="color:rgb(60,64,67);font-family:roboto,"helvetica neue",arial,sans-serif;font-size:18px">Here's my best attempt so far:</span></p><p style="margin:0px 0px 1em;line-height:1.5;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><font color="#3c4043" face="roboto, helvetica neue, arial, sans-serif">FIASM Fractional Implicit Approval Sorted Margins: Ballots are ranked preference style with equal rankings and truncations allowed. Each candidate's fractional implicit approval score is the number of ballots on which it is ranked equal top plus half the number of ballots on which it is ranked above at least one candidate, but not ranked top.</font></p><p style="margin:0px 0px 1em;line-height:1.5;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><font color="#3c4043" face="roboto, helvetica neue, arial, sans-serif">The candidates are listed in fractional implicit approval order. While there is any adjacent pair where the fractional implicit approval order contradicts the pairwise (head-to-head) win order, transpose the members of the out-of-order pair with the smallest absolute discrepancy in fractional implicit approval.</font></p><p style="margin:0px 0px 1em;line-height:1.5;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><font color="#3c4043" face="roboto, helvetica neue, arial, sans-serif">The resulting list is a social order that satisfies a reverse symmetry property ... reversing all of the ballot ranking inputs (so that equal top becomes equal bottom [or truncated] and vice versa) reverses the social order output.</font></p><p style="margin:0px 0px 1em;line-height:1.5;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><font color="#3c4043" face="roboto, helvetica neue, arial, sans-serif">Does this method satisfy Universal Domain?</font></p><p style="margin:0px 0px 1em;line-height:1.5;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><font color="#3c4043" face="roboto, helvetica neue, arial, sans-serif">Now, what if optional explicit cutoff marks were allowed to demarcate the three levels (0, 1/2, or 1) of fractional approval. Would that violate Universal Domain? </font></p><p style="margin:0px 0px 1em;line-height:1.5;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><font color="#3c4043" face="roboto, helvetica neue, arial, sans-serif">If so, then the Oxford definition quoted above is inadequate, since it does not logically rule out optional marks when the lack of any optional mark defaults to a standard ranking, and the only stated requirement is that no standard ranking be unusable.</font></p><p style="margin:0px 0px 1em;line-height:1.5;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><font color="#3c4043" face="roboto, helvetica neue, arial, sans-serif">Thoughts?</font></p></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">El vie., 10 de sep. de 2021 10:56 p. m., Kevin Venzke <<a href="mailto:stepjak@yahoo.fr" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">stepjak@yahoo.fr</a>> escribió:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div style="font-family:Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px"><div></div>
<div>To my mind Implicit Approval (as a method in itself) only satisfies it if you can define the ballot format while discussing only relative rankings. So, for example, if the voter ranks all candidates totally equal to each other (no matter whether they are explicitly so ranked, or the ballot is submitted with all preferences truncated), this can only be allowed to mean that all are approved or that none are approved, since there is no way to differentiate these two stances using relative rankings only.</div><div><br></div><div>Kevin</div><div><br></div><div><br></div>
</div><div id="m_5321466308439074635m_-8746497836779823210m_8646309444019156463ydp22b6584eyahoo_quoted_2163455469">
<div style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:#26282a">
<div>
Le vendredi 10 septembre 2021, 21:49:14 UTC−5, Forest Simmons <<a href="mailto:forest.simmons21@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">forest.simmons21@gmail.com</a>> a écrit :
</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><div id="m_5321466308439074635m_-8746497836779823210m_8646309444019156463ydp22b6584eyiv7786581176"><div>Does Implicit Approval satisfy Universal Domain?</div>
</div>----<br>Election-Methods mailing list - see <a href="https://electorama.com/em" rel="nofollow noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://electorama.com/em </a>for list info<br></div>
</div>
</div></div></blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">El 10 sep. 2021 10:56 p. m., "Kevin Venzke" <<a href="mailto:stepjak@yahoo.fr" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">stepjak@yahoo.fr</a>> escribió:<br type="attribution"><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div style="font-family:Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px"><div></div>
<div>To my mind Implicit Approval (as a method in itself) only satisfies it if you can define the ballot format while discussing only relative rankings. So, for example, if the voter ranks all candidates totally equal to each other (no matter whether they are explicitly so ranked, or the ballot is submitted with all preferences truncated), this can only be allowed to mean that all are approved or that none are approved, since there is no way to differentiate these two stances using relative rankings only.</div><div><br></div><div>Kevin</div><div><br></div><div><br></div>
</div><div id="m_5321466308439074635m_8646309444019156463ydp22b6584eyahoo_quoted_2163455469">
<div style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:#26282a">
<div>
Le vendredi 10 septembre 2021, 21:49:14 UTC−5, Forest Simmons <<a href="mailto:forest.simmons21@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">forest.simmons21@gmail.com</a>> a écrit :
</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><div id="m_5321466308439074635m_8646309444019156463ydp22b6584eyiv7786581176"><div>Does Implicit Approval satisfy Universal Domain?</div>
</div>----<br>Election-Methods mailing list - see <a href="https://electorama.com/em" rel="nofollow noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://electorama.com/em </a>for list info<br></div>
</div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>
</div><div><span>----</span><br><span>Election-Methods mailing list - see <a href="https://electorama.com/em">https://electorama.com/em</a> for list info</span><br></div></body></html>