I've just realized what I liked so much about MMPO: It meets FBC. That means
that we _don't_ do a CC-check with MMPO, and so it fails CC. That's ok. I'd
gladly trade CC
for FBC.
It seems to me that someone posted an example in which the wv methods give
someone a way to
improve their outcome by burying their favorite.
It woudl rarely happen, and it wouldn't cause me to favorite-bury. But many
others will, if they can't
be assured that there could never be such a situation. That's why, at the time
when I quit EM last time,
I no longer advocated wv for public elections.
I had several FBC-complying methods that I liked very much, with such names as
MMC, MAMPO, MDDB, SR...etc.
I haven't been able to find what MDDB and SR were. Or MAMPO either.
Can anyone tell me, or tell me where I can look it up?
Right now, of the rank methods I _currently_ know the definitions of, and have
checked out a little, my favorite is
Bucklin(= whole simultaneous) (simulataneous as opposed to Ordered Bucklin
versions, in which rankings
give to their next choices in some order, instead of simultaneously).
For brevity, I'll call that method "Stepwise Approval" (SA).
SA meets FBC, SDSC, and MMC.
MMC stands for Mutual Majority Criterion. It's also called Majority for Solid
Coalitions. MMC is weaker than
SDSC, but, because it's desirable, and because it's so attainable, there's
probably no need to do without it.
I don't know if non-CC PC (MM(wv)), MDDA, or the other methods I liked meet
SDSC. I guess they probably
meet MMC, but I don't currently know.
It's difficult to choose between Approval and a good rank method, for a public
proposal.
Rank methods elicit more interest from people, because they can offer more.
But rank methods have the disadvantage that there are so many ways to count
rankings, that people
are overwhelmed, and hear conflicting advice. How to count the rankings, they
wonder.
Also, Approval is like a solid, reliable and simple hand-tool. It isn't as
labor-saving as a good rank method.
The rank-methods are labor-saving machines. But machines can have their
problems &/or idiosyncracies.
Some or many will sometimes act up or do things that will embarrass you. Some
more than others,
of course.
It has been shown, here, and in journal articles, that Approval will soon home
in on the CW. After a few
elecions. But "a few elections" can be a decade or more. We'd like better
results before that, and so
I'm for a rank method as much as anyone is. If we can overcome the problem of
voters confronted with
so many different rank counts.
And the problem of telling the voter why our rank proposal is desirable.
Mike Ossipoff
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
