2011/11/6 MIKE OSSIPOFF <[email protected]> > > > Hi Forest-- > > What made me like IRV (= whole) was that, while not failing in the > Approval bad-example, > it meets (or so I thought) FBC, 1CM, SDSC, 3P and UP. > > (1CM is a milder version of SDSC. UP is a stronger version of 3P) > > Then, I had to abandon IRV (= whole), when Kevin showed that it fails FBC. > > He showed an example in which half of a certain candidate's voters > equal-top-ranked a > certain needed compromise, but the other half didn't. In order for the > compromise to > get enough votes, it was necessary for the equal-ranking voters to, > instead, downrank > their favorite, to immediately eliminate hir. > > Does the IRV variant that you describe meet FBC? >
I don't know about Forest's IRV variant, but my 321 voting (based on David's IRV3/Approval3, but with equal ranking) does. > > I feel that the U.S. voters are so lesser-of-2-evils dominated that FBC is > absolutely > necessary for our public elections. > > I've watched someone vote in a rank-balloting presidential mock election. > Though she > prefers Nader's policies to those of the Democrats, she ranked all of the > Democrats > over Nader. > > FBC is essential for public elections. > > My current favorite is MDD, ER-Bucklin (whole) (where ER-Bucklin(whole) > is defined > as in the electowicki). > > This is very similar to Majority Judgment. The advantages of the latter are: 1. There's a book about it. 2. There's a wikipedia article about it. 3. Balinski and Laraki (the inventors) make a good argument that methods like this should use words, not numbers, as rating categories, to encourage a common understanding of meanings among voters; and that this will improve results. > It's the Cadillac of FBC methods. > > Is there an FBC-complying method meets UP and SDSC and that does better by > other criteria? > > Is there an FBC-complying method that doesn't fail in the Approval > bad-example? > > SODA voting. As I've said about 5 times already. > ...and maybe that also meets at least 1CM and 3P. > Not exactly, but I'd argue it fulfills the spirit of those criteria. > > > > I call ER-Bucklin (whole) "ABucklin". > > So I call its MDD version "MDD, ABucklin". > > I've polled two people so far, and the winner so far (among Approval, MTA, > MDDA and ABucklin) is > MTA. > > > Mike > > > ---- > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info >
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
