>> Something I've been wondering about... has anyone suggested extending >> the gradation in MCA beyond preferred, approved, and diapproved? �For >> example, why not use MCA with a A,B,C,D,F ballot? �If no candidate has a >> majority of A's, then check for a majority of A's and B's, then check >> for a majority of A's, B's, and C's, and finally just elect the >> candidate with the most A's, B's, C's, and D's. >> >> It seems like an obvious point, but I haven't actually seen any messages >> advocating it. �Call it "extended MCA" or "unconstrained Bucklin" or >> "Approval Bucklin" or "Bucklin done right" or "bubble up approval" or >> whatever. >> >> -Adam > >Forest suggested a Modified Bucklin method in messages 8390 and 8391 from >Yahoo Groups.
Thanks for the link. The major difference here is that rather than checking for a majority of votes of votes above a certain level, Forest's proposal looks for a fraction greater than 1/N, where N is the number of candidates. I don't like this idea, since it makes the method sensitive to the number of candidates. This causes the method to fail clone-independence, among other things. Sticking to a majority as the cutoff seems simple and effective. -Adam ---- For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em
