<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
  </head>
  <body>
    <p>Ted,<br>
      <br>
       Thanks for that explanation.<br>
      <br>
      <blockquote type="cite">while margin sorted approval is an
        excellent method, the approval cutoff (what I prefer to think of
        as a preference cutoff, since all ranked candidates are
        approved)</blockquote>
      <br>
      I haven't heard that version suggested, and it isn't what I had in
      mind when I nominated it in the poll, as  I specified at the time.<br>
      <br>
      <blockquote type="cite">MarginsSorted Approval (specified cutoff):
        <br>
        <br>
        Voters rank from the top however many candidates they wish and
        can also specify an approval<br>
        cutoff/threshold. Default approval is only for candidates ranked
        below no others (i.e. ranked top<br>
        or equal-top).</blockquote>
      <br>
      It occurred to to suggest separate  "technical merit" and
      "bang-for-buck" polls, but people have different (and/or not
      clear) ideas on exactly what is "bang" and what is "buck".<br>
      <br>
      Another idea is to talk about what we consider to be the best
      and/or acceptable balloting rules, and those that are or are
      likely to be imposed by the "real world".<br>
      <br>
      And then we could have separate polls on methods for the different
      ballot rules. Some methods are much more sensitive to these
      details than others.  <br>
      <br>
      With the poll as it is I top-rank Margins Sorted Approval
      (specified cutoff) but other methods (such as this one you
      nominated) might make it to equal-top on my final ballot.<br>
      <br>
      <blockquote type="cite"><br>
        A Forrest Simmons invention. Candidates are listed in approval
        score order and if any adjacent pairs<br>
        are pairwise out of order then this is corrected by flipping the
        out-of-order pair with the smallest<br>
        margin. If there is a tie for this we flip the less approved
        pair. Repeat until there are no adjacent pairs<br>
        of candidates that are pairwise out of order, then elect the
        highest-ordered candidate.</blockquote>
    </p>
    <p>More later.<br>
      <br>
      Chris<br>
      <br>
      <br>
    </p>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/04/2024 9:27 am, Ted Stern wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAHGFzOR4ucJZ-TX4=RrnvcyeRGg-R+p+pctw=MSF-efMqgsXuw@mail.gmail.com">
      <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
      <div dir="auto">PS to previous:
        <div dir="auto"><br>
        </div>
        <div dir="auto">Since the condorcet winner doesn't have a min lv
          score, minlv score could be either 0%, 100%, or 50% by
          default. </div>
      </div>
      <br>
      <div class="gmail_quote">
        <div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Apr 11, 2024, 16:54
          Ted Stern <<a href="mailto:dodecatheon@gmail.com"
            moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">dodecatheon@gmail.com</a>>
          wrote:<br>
        </div>
        <blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
          <div dir="auto">Chris, what I nominated for the poll was
            essentially the same as what you proposed in October of
            2016, but simplified to require no elimination step
            iteration. Just one margin sort on MinLV(erw). 
            <div dir="auto"><br>
            </div>
            <div dir="auto"><a
href="http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2016-October/000599.html"
                rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
                moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2016-October/000599.html</a><br>
            </div>
            <div dir="auto"><br>
            </div>
            <div dir="auto">ERW means that if A and B have equal rank
              above bottom, we fill in the pairwise array as if it were
              one whole vote of A>B and one whole vote of B>A.</div>
            <div dir="auto"><br>
            </div>
            <div dir="auto">The reason I proposed it is that seeding the
              margin sort with MinLV score in descending order is
              analogous to minimum pairwise opposition in ascending
              order. MinMaxPO is burial resistant, the property we're
              looking for, and for margin sort, we want a metric that is
              analogous to approval, with descending scores. </div>
            <div dir="auto"><br>
            </div>
            <div dir="auto">If we wanted the <i>exact</i> complement,
              we would do margin sort on <i>min votes</i>, to get the
              closest approximation to MinMaxPO(wv) possible while still
              being Smith compliant. However, minmax (or rather maxmin)
              is not clone proof, as can be seen by applying margin sort
              min votes to the example you posted last week:</div>
            <div dir="auto"><br>
            </div>
            <div dir="auto"><a
href="http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2024-April/005616.html"
                rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
                moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2024-April/005616.html</a></div>
            <div dir="auto"><br>
            </div>
            <div dir="auto">By using minLV instead of min votes, C's
              minimum score of 18 (with clone) is ignored and so the
              seed ranking before margin sort is unchanged by the
              addition of the clone.</div>
            <div dir="auto"><br>
            </div>
            <div dir="auto">My motivation for the nomination: while
              margin sorted approval is an excellent method, the
              approval cutoff (what I prefer to think of as a preference
              cutoff, since all ranked candidates are approved) is an
              additional step, requiring either an additional count for
              implicit approval, or an extra mental judgment by the
              voter. </div>
            <div dir="auto"><br>
            </div>
            <div dir="auto">Margin Sorted MinLV(erw) is automatic, and
              from my limited testing, tends to find a candidate with
              strong top ratings. </div>
          </div>
          <br>
          <div class="gmail_quote">
            <div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Apr 11, 2024,
              01:17 Chris Benham <<a
                href="mailto:cbenhamau@yahoo.com.au"
                rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
                moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">cbenhamau@yahoo.com.au</a>>
              wrote:<br>
            </div>
            <blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
              <div>
                <p>Ted,<br>
                  <br>
                  I'm not completely clear on what the "equal rated
                  whole" part means, and likely there are some other
                  possible<br>
                  voters who have no idea what any of it means.<br>
                  <br>
                  This is what I think it all means.<br>
                  <br>
                  Voters rank the candidates from the top, equal ranking
                  an truncation allowed.  Then we construct a pairwise
                  matrix.<br>
                  <br>
                  A ballot voting A over B gives one vote in the A-B
                  comparison to A and nothing to B.   A ballot that
                  truncates (or votes<br>
                  equal-bottom) both A and B gives nothing to both in
                  the A-B comparison.<br>
                  <br>
                  But in the case a ballot explicitly votes A=B above
                  bottom, do you propose that the ballot give a whole
                  vote each to<br>
                  A and B in the A-B comparison? (Until I hear otherwise
                  from you, I'll assume this is  what you mean.)<br>
                  <br>
                  An alternative reasonable idea would be for this to be
                  only the case where the ballot votes A and B below no
                  other<br>
                  candidates, and if they are voted A=B above bottom but
                  below top then the ballot gives half a vote to each of
                  A and<br>
                  B in the A-B comparison.<br>
                  <br>
                  In any case I understand that we  score each candidate
                  according to the minimum number of votes they got in a
                  pairwise<br>
                  loss, and order them from highest to lowest.<br>
                  <br>
                  Then candidates are listed in  score order and if any
                  adjacent pairs are pairwise out of order then this is
                  corrected by <br>
                  flipping the out-of-order pair with the smallest
                  margin. If there is a tie for this we flip the lowest
                  scored tied pair. Repeat until <br>
                  there are no adjacent pairs of candidates that are
                  pairwise out of order, then elect the highest-ordered
                  candidate.<br>
                  <br>
                  I am favourably disposed to this, but I'd like some
                  clarification (and hopefully some de-confusing
                  justification) on the issue<br>
                  of how we treat equal ranking (or "rating").<br>
                  <br>
                  Chris Benham<br>
                  <br>
                  <br>
                </p>
                <blockquote type="cite">
                  <h1
style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"Times New Roman";font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><br>
                  </h1>
                  <b
style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"Times New Roman";font-size:medium;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial">Ted
                    Stern</b><span
style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"Times New Roman";font-size:medium;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;display:inline!important;float:none"><span> </span></span><a
href="mailto:election-methods%40lists.electorama.com?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BEM%5D%20Poll%20on%20voting-systems%2C%0A%20to%20inform%20voters%20in%20upcoming%20enactment-elections&In-Reply-To=%3CCAHGFzOTaPTdMnVw7TELxExvM4ZjbAEtaxJWZ-%2Bpcttf4ATXhPw%40mail.gmail.com%3E"
title="[EM] Poll on voting-systems, to inform voters in upcoming enactment-elections"
style="font-family:"Times New Roman";font-size:medium;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal"
                    rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer"
                    target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">dodecatheon
                    at gmail.com</a><br
style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"Times New Roman";font-size:medium;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial">
                  <i
style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"Times New Roman";font-size:medium;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial">Sat
                    Apr 6 12:33:35 PDT 2024</i><span
style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"Times New Roman";font-size:medium;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;display:inline!important;float:none"></span>
                  <p
style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"Times New Roman";font-size:medium;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><br>
                  </p>
                  <hr
style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:"Times New Roman";font-size:medium;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial">
                  <pre
style="white-space:pre-wrap;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial">I'd like to nominate

Margin Sorted Minimum Losing Votes (equal rated whole)</pre>
                </blockquote>
                <br>
              </div>
            </blockquote>
          </div>
        </blockquote>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
  </body>
</html>