At 02:42 PM 6/18/2013, Jameson Quinn wrote:
New running tally, including Andy Jennings's
latest votes (which went out on only one of the
lists). Current voting tallies in parentheses,
ordered JQ/AL/RB/AJ/DSH/BG/BRG. Options have
been placed in descending order, which I expect to be stable from here on.
Abd: please vote on MAV, MSV, CAV, AAV, and CSV.
My votes are the second in each list.
Majority Approval Voting: (A/B/C/A/A/D/B) Median:
B, votes above: 3. PROBABLE WINNER.
Additive Approval Voting: (B/C/B/C/B/E/B) Median: B, votes above: 0
Descending Approval Threshold Voting:
(A/B-/B/C/C/F/A) Median B-; votes above B, 2.
Cumulative Approval Voting: (A/C/B/C/D/A/F) Median C; votes above: 3
Majority Support Voting: (B/D/C/A/C/D/B) Median C; votes above: 3
Instant Runoff Approval Voting: (B/A/F/C/F/F/C) Median C; votes above: 2
Cumulative Support Voting: (A/C/B/C/F/C/F) Median C; votes above: 2
I am happy with how this went. There are still
details we haven't come to consensus on such
as the numbers of and labels for rating
categories but I am comfortable with leaving
those unspecified, and allowing each advocate to specify them if they want to.
Abd: I understand that you favor the "runoff"
terminology. However, the IRAV proposal lost
convincingly. If you have any further issues to
discuss, please pose them (along with your votes as requested above).
Well, I could have shifted the DAT vote to tie
with MAV.... However, the particular system is
DAT with a backup as needed to avoid a multiple
majority. MAV represents that. I'm still
uncomfortable with the *method*, i.e., with
dumping the principle of preponderance of the
votes in the case of a multiple majority, and we
have seen inadequate discussion of that./
I would happily have submitted to the majority
here on even a name I didn't personally like.
I hope that, at least on these lists, we can
begin to come together to use MAV as the
representative Bucklin proposal, and stop
pushing our own individual variants like "GMJ" or "ER-Bucklin".
I can appreciate the intention, but not the push.
The Approval Voting consensus arose rather
naturally, this seems to have been rushed. What's the hurry?
I see a place for using different names in
different contexts, and do not see that "one size fits all."
MAV -- I'm happy to use that name for a defined
method, and will leave the "grade" issue for
later -- sacrifices utility maximization for some
increased level of LnH protection. I *do* think
it's an interesting idea, but would greatly
prefer to resolve the problem with real runoffs,
*whenever* the votes show the lack of a clear majority *choice.*
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
