Personally I don't understand why one would want to spend time on a method that
you have to defend by saying
"it might work anyway," even if as built the incentives are wrong.
I like the idea of being able to test things, so I may be biased here.
It's taking a shot in the dark. How fantastic must this method be, for that to
seem like a good idea? It's hard to
believe one couldn't go back and work out something that more reliably does
whatever you were going for.
Also, if MJ is a serious proposal it should be called "median rating" and use
the Bucklin tiebreaker. You'd have
a name that means something and a tiebreaker that isn't a pain to solve.At the
top rating (the one we all agree
might matter) the rules aren't even different.
The name is so bad. Imagine you hear that on the news and are trying to figure
out what it means. "Majority"
doesn't tell you that much (IRV already does majorities and they didn't even
need to put it in the name) and
"judgment" refers to what? The voting. They're calling it "judgment" though.
Puke. So dramatic and it doesn't
even say anything.
The tie-breaker is the same thing really. It sounds neat and fair to pull out
median votes one by one, but in
practice that isn't the methodology, you really should use math. Try coding MJ
and then see how much code you
could delete, how much less thought it would've taken you, if you just wanted
the Bucklin tiebreaker instead.
Kevin
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
