Re: [EM] [CES #8791] Upper-Bucklin naming (was: Median systems, branding....)
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. *Majority Approval Voting*: (A/?/C/A/A/D/B) Median: B, votes above: 3. PROBABLE WINNER. Additive Approval Voting: (B/?/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/?/B/C/D/A/F) Median C; votes above: 3 Majority Support Voting: (B/?/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/?/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). 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. Jameson Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] [CES #8791] Upper-Bucklin naming (was: Median systems, branding....)
Two points: 1. I chatted with Rob Brown about the upper Bucklin naming question. His votes were: IRAV: F DAT: B Median Ranking: A Median Rating: A Median Grade: A Cumulative Best Approval (CBA): B I myself would give those latter four options C, C, B, and A respectively. Here are my votes on Andy's proposals. I think his point about two words is well-taken, but I'm not going to change my existing votes. Also, I think an appropriate enough acronym could allow 3 letters/words. -Majority Approval Voting: A -Delayed Approval Voting: D -Approval Level Voting: D -Delayed Support Voting: C -Majority Support Voting: B -Support Level Voting: F -Gradual Support Voting: C -Gradual Approval Voting: B In the spirit of his two-level-only dictum, here are a few more ideas: -Cumulative Approval Voting: A -Cumulative Support Voting: A -Cumulative Majority Voting: B (But CMV rings a bell, and I don't think it's just for cytomegalovirus; is there already a CMV voting system proposal?) -As above, but replace Cumulative with additive: 1 grade lower. -ABC (Approval-Based Cumulative) voting: C (I like the acronym, especially if we're using letter grades; but I am not satisfied with this backronym. Anyone else have ideas? Approval, additive; building, based, best, biggest; cumulative, cutoff, classify... ) So currently Descending Approval Threshold (DAT) is in the lead with a median of B. Please add your votes before Wednesday; until then, I'll just use my favorite of whatever terms currently lead, but wrap it in ¿? question marks. 2. I was thinking about how to give a GMJ-like single number for reporting a candidate's results under ¿DAT?, and I realized that the GMJ formula itself could work with some adjustments. The formula is: Median + (V - V) / (2 * V=) Where V, V, and V= are votes above, below, and at the median. ¿DAT? can use the same formula as long as you replace V with some number that's constant across candidates for a given election and median, and replace V= with (Vtot - (V + V)). (It could also in principle work for a constant V= if that was large enough, but I don't like that idea as much.) So what should we use for the fake V for reporting? Using the average (or even better, geometric mean) of the real V numbers for that election and median would give the most-realistic numbers. But even a simple constant, like 1/(2*number of grades)=10% wouldn't be too bad. Anyway, the point is that you could pretty clearly find a way to report ¿DAT? results using one number per candidate, which removes one of my last good reasons to prefer GMJ. And that way comes from GMJ, so my work on GMJ isn't a total loss, which removes one of my last bad reasons to prefer GMJ :). So, pending naming, I think ¿DAT? is the future of Bucklin systems. Jameson Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] [CES #8791] Upper-Bucklin naming (was: Median systems, branding....)
A humorous (but utterly non-serious) thought just occurred to me: What voting method are you guys going to use to elect a name for this new system? Kidding! :) -Benn Grant eFix Computer Consulting mailto:b...@4efix.com b...@4efix.com 603.283.6601 From: election-methods-boun...@lists.electorama.com [mailto:election-methods-boun...@lists.electorama.com] On Behalf Of Jameson Quinn Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 1:10 PM To: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax Cc: electionscie...@googlegroups.com; election-methods Subject: Re: [EM] [CES #8791] Upper-Bucklin naming (was: Median systems, branding) Two points: 1. I chatted with Rob Brown about the upper Bucklin naming question. His votes were: IRAV: F DAT: B Median Ranking: A Median Rating: A Median Grade: A Cumulative Best Approval (CBA): B I myself would give those latter four options C, C, B, and A respectively. Here are my votes on Andy's proposals. I think his point about two words is well-taken, but I'm not going to change my existing votes. Also, I think an appropriate enough acronym could allow 3 letters/words. -Majority Approval Voting: A -Delayed Approval Voting: D -Approval Level Voting: D -Delayed Support Voting: C -Majority Support Voting: B -Support Level Voting: F -Gradual Support Voting: C -Gradual Approval Voting: B In the spirit of his two-level-only dictum, here are a few more ideas: -Cumulative Approval Voting: A -Cumulative Support Voting: A -Cumulative Majority Voting: B (But CMV rings a bell, and I don't think it's just for cytomegalovirus; is there already a CMV voting system proposal?) -As above, but replace Cumulative with additive: 1 grade lower. -ABC (Approval-Based Cumulative) voting: C (I like the acronym, especially if we're using letter grades; but I am not satisfied with this backronym. Anyone else have ideas? Approval, additive; building, based, best, biggest; cumulative, cutoff, classify... ) So currently Descending Approval Threshold (DAT) is in the lead with a median of B. Please add your votes before Wednesday; until then, I'll just use my favorite of whatever terms currently lead, but wrap it in ¿? question marks. 2. I was thinking about how to give a GMJ-like single number for reporting a candidate's results under ¿DAT?, and I realized that the GMJ formula itself could work with some adjustments. The formula is: Median + (V - V) / (2 * V=) Where V, V, and V= are votes above, below, and at the median. ¿DAT? can use the same formula as long as you replace V with some number that's constant across candidates for a given election and median, and replace V= with (Vtot - (V + V)). (It could also in principle work for a constant V= if that was large enough, but I don't like that idea as much.) So what should we use for the fake V for reporting? Using the average (or even better, geometric mean) of the real V numbers for that election and median would give the most-realistic numbers. But even a simple constant, like 1/(2*number of grades)=10% wouldn't be too bad. Anyway, the point is that you could pretty clearly find a way to report ¿DAT? results using one number per candidate, which removes one of my last good reasons to prefer GMJ. And that way comes from GMJ, so my work on GMJ isn't a total loss, which removes one of my last bad reasons to prefer GMJ :). So, pending naming, I think ¿DAT? is the future of Bucklin systems. Jameson Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] [CES #8791] Upper-Bucklin naming (was: Median systems, branding....)
2013/6/17 Benjamin Grant b...@4efix.com A humorous (but utterly non-serious) thought just occurred to me: ** ** What voting method are you guys going to use to elect a name for this new system? The system itself, of course. So what do you vote? It's fine if you leave out any vote under C. And if you don't fully understand the system, all the better, because in that respect you're more like the average voter than I am. Jameson Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] [CES #8791] Upper-Bucklin naming (was: Median systems, branding....)
You just scared me, asking me how I vote, I don't feel qualified to have an opinion, I haven't even focused on the conversation enough to know the precise system you are talking about, so I was mostly just trying to stay out of the way and let me elders do their business. :) If for some reason I can't explain you really want my opinion on this, then I would unfortunately have to ask two questions that were probably answered earlier when I was paying attention to other things: How does the unnamed system work, and what are the naming choices again? But again, please know that I mostly am just trying to stay out of everyone's way while I am trying to get up to speed, which I am guessing for me will be long and slow. ;) -Benn Grant eFix Computer Consulting mailto:b...@4efix.com b...@4efix.com 603.283.6601 From: Jameson Quinn [mailto:jameson.qu...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 1:28 PM To: Benjamin Grant Cc: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax; electionscie...@googlegroups.com; election-methods Subject: Re: [EM] [CES #8791] Upper-Bucklin naming (was: Median systems, branding) 2013/6/17 Benjamin Grant b...@4efix.com mailto:b...@4efix.com A humorous (but utterly non-serious) thought just occurred to me: What voting method are you guys going to use to elect a name for this new system? The system itself, of course. So what do you vote? It's fine if you leave out any vote under C. And if you don't fully understand the system, all the better, because in that respect you're more like the average voter than I am. Jameson Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] [CES #8791] Upper-Bucklin naming (was: Median systems, branding....)
2013/6/17 Benjamin Grant b...@4efix.com You just scared me, asking me how I vote, I don’t feel qualified to have an opinion, I haven’t even focused on the conversation enough to know the precise system you are talking about, so I was mostly just trying to stay out of the way and let me elders do their business. J The point of this vote is to get the opinions of people who aren't neck-deep in the technical details. So you're absolutely qualified to vote. ** ** If for some reason I can’t explain you really want my opinion on this, then I would unfortunately have to ask two questions that were probably answered earlier when I was paying attention to other things: ** ** How does the unnamed system work, and what are the naming choices again? Here's the description of the unnamed system as Abd gave it: Count the votes at 1st Choice for each candidate. If a single candidate has a majority, this canditate wins. If not, add in lower choices, one at a time, until a candidate or candidates gains a majority. If two or more candidates reach a majority at a stage, then whichever candidate has the most votes above that stage wins. If this is 1st Choice, or if all the choices have been amalgamated, and no candidate has a majority, then the candidate with the most votes wins. The naming choices with significant support are (current voting tallies in parentheses, ordered JQ/AL/RB/AJ) Instant Runoff Approval Voting: (B/A/F/C) Descending Approval Threshold Voting: (A/B-/B/C) Majority Approval Voting: (A/?/C/A) Majority Support Voting: (B/?/C/A) Cumulative Approval Voting: (A/?/B/?) Cumulative Support Voting: (A/?/B/?) Assuming question marks as F's, DAT is currently leading, but I think the last two are promising. Jameson Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] [CES #8791] Upper-Bucklin naming (was: Median systems, branding....)
From: Jameson Quinn [mailto:jameson.qu...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 2:20 PM Subject: Re: [EM] [CES #8791] Upper-Bucklin naming (was: Median systems, branding) Here's the description of the unnamed system as Abd gave it: Count the votes at 1st Choice for each candidate. If a single candidate has a majority, this canditate wins. If not, add in lower choices, one at a time, until a candidate or candidates gains a majority. If two or more candidates reach a majority at a stage, then whichever candidate has the most votes above that stage wins. If this is 1st Choice, or if all the choices have been amalgamated, and no candidate has a majority, then the candidate with the most votes wins. The naming choices with significant support are (current voting tallies in parentheses, ordered JQ/AL/RB/AJ) Instant Runoff Approval Voting: (B/A/F/C) Descending Approval Threshold Voting: (A/B-/B/C) Majority Approval Voting: (A/?/C/A) Majority Support Voting: (B/?/C/A) Cumulative Approval Voting: (A/?/B/?) Cumulative Support Voting: (A/?/B/?) Assuming question marks as F's, DAT is currently leading, but I think the last two are promising. Jameson Well, that sounds a lot like the system we have be talking about in the other thread. DAT sounds confusing to me in this context. One of the Cumulatives makes the most sense instinctually to me as (if I understand this correctly) we keep adding in more ranks until we get enough to answer the question. IRAV makes it seem like a flavor of IRV, which in my full lack of experience seems wrong (Buckley seems unlike IRV), so I guess I would vote something like this: Instant Runoff Approval Voting: F Descending Approval Threshold Voting: F Majority Approval Voting: D Majority Support Voting: D Cumulative Approval Voting: A Cumulative Support Voting: C Unless I have to rank them in order and not use the same rank twice, in which case I would do: Cumulative Approval Voting: 1st Cumulative Support Voting: 2nd Majority Support Voting: 3rd Majority Approval Voting: 4th Descending Approval Threshold Voting: 5th Instant Runoff Approval Voting: 6th And just for giggles, here's my ScoreVoting (0-100) ballot: Cumulative Approval Voting: 100 Cumulative Support Voting: 80 Majority Support Voting: 60 Majority Approval Voting: 50 Descending Approval Threshold Voting: 35 Instant Runoff Approval Voting: 0 I tried to answer all the above as sincerely and non-strategically as possible. Hope this helps. If any of the above is dumb, chuck it, please. ;) -Benn Grant eFix Computer Consulting mailto:b...@4efix.com b...@4efix.com 603.283.6601 Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] [CES #8791] Upper-Bucklin naming (was: Median systems, branding....)
New running tally. Current voting tallies in parentheses, ordered JQ/AL/RB/AJ/DSH/BG. Note the new option for Additive Approval Voting, which could be a winner if Abd, Andy, and Ben like it enough. Current contenders for best are in bold. Instant Runoff Approval Voting: (B/A/F/C/F/F) Median C/F. Descending Approval Threshold Voting: (A/B-/B/C/C/F) Median B-/C. *Majority Approval Voting*: (A/?/C/A/A/D) Median A/C Majority Support Voting: (B/?/C/A/C/D) Median C Cumulative Approval Voting: (A/?/B/?/D/A) Median B/D *Additive Approval Voting*: (B/?/B/?/B/?) Median B/? Cumulative Support Voting: (A/?/B/?/F/C) Median C/? Jameson Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] [CES #8791] Upper-Bucklin naming (was: Median systems, branding....)
I guess (assuming I am allowed to duplicate ratings) I would call Additive Approval Voting an E (if we are using ABCDEF) - I like it better than DAT and IRAV, but less well than all the others. If E is not allowed, I guess flip a coin as to whether it gets a D or F. On a side note, it's interesting how having this vote makes me more directly aware of the voting system than thinking abstractly about it. -Benn Grant eFix Computer Consulting mailto:b...@4efix.com b...@4efix.com 603.283.6601 From: Jameson Quinn [mailto:jameson.qu...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 3:04 PM To: Benjamin Grant Cc: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax; electionscie...@googlegroups.com; election-methods Subject: Re: [EM] [CES #8791] Upper-Bucklin naming (was: Median systems, branding) New running tally. Current voting tallies in parentheses, ordered JQ/AL/RB/AJ/DSH/BG. Note the new option for Additive Approval Voting, which could be a winner if Abd, Andy, and Ben like it enough. Current contenders for best are in bold. Instant Runoff Approval Voting: (B/A/F/C/F/F) Median C/F. Descending Approval Threshold Voting: (A/B-/B/C/C/F) Median B-/C. Majority Approval Voting: (A/?/C/A/A/D) Median A/C Majority Support Voting: (B/?/C/A/C/D) Median C Cumulative Approval Voting: (A/?/B/?/D/A) Median B/D Additive Approval Voting: (B/?/B/?/B/?) Median B/? Cumulative Support Voting: (A/?/B/?/F/C) Median C/? Jameson Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] [CES #8791] Upper-Bucklin naming (was: Median systems, branding....)
I got votes from Bruce Gilson (BRG). New running tally. Current voting tallies in parentheses, ordered JQ/AL/RB/AJ/DSH/BG/BRG. Instant Runoff Approval Voting: (B/A/F/C/F/F/C) Median C. Descending Approval Threshold Voting: (A/B-/B/C/C/F/A) Median B-; votes above B, 2. *Majority Approval Voting*: (A/?/C/A/A/D/B) Median: B, votes above: 3. PROBABLE WINNER. Majority Support Voting: (B/?/C/A/C/D/B) Median C Cumulative Approval Voting: (A/?/B/?/D/A/F) Median D Additive Approval Voting: (B/?/B/?/B/E/B) Median: B, votes above: 0 Cumulative Support Voting: (A/?/B/?/F/C/F) Median ? We are still missing votes from Abd and others, but it's pretty clear that MAV is going to win. So from now on, unless there's an upset, I'll be calling this system MAV with no ¿?. Thanks to everyone who voted, and sorry for being a bit of a pest about it. Abd: I am interested in seeking consensus, but as the system designer I personally lean strongly in favor of using letter grades (ABCDF) with some kind of descriptive labels involving support or approval. If you have another proposal, please make it. If it's just your preferences versus mine I'll listen to your arguments but I may call designer's privilege. But if you find someone else to take your side, I'll probably cede the point. Jameson Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] [CES #8791] Upper-Bucklin naming (was: Median systems, branding....)
At 01:51 PM 6/17/2013, Benjamin Grant wrote: Well, that sounds a lot like the system we have be talking about in the other thread. DAT sounds confusing to me in this context. One of the Cumulatives makes the most sense instinctually to me as (if I understand this correctly) we keep adding in more ranks until we get enough to answer the question. IRAV makes it seem like a flavor of IRV, which in my full lack of experience seems wrong (Buckley seems unlike IRV), so I guess I would vote something like this: Some facts should be known. First of all, the system as described is *almost* identical to the system called Bucklin that was widely used in the U.S. That traditional system was different in two ways (as generally implemented, there were variations): 1. It only allowed equal ranking in the third rank. With our modern perspective, we see little reason to require exclusive ranking at the top rank, and less reason to require it in the second rank. It merely makes the system less flexible for the voter. First rank exclusion *might* be required because of ballot placement rules and public campaign funding, but there are better ways to handle this, we could suspect. (The basic cost of requiring exclusive ranking is that some votes will be spoiled and some voters who have low preference strength will be *forced to choose.* Even if that is difficult.) 2. The method *is* instant runoff approval. That is, it simulates a series of repeated approval elections. In the earlier elections, voters may bullet vote, just for their favorite. But as it becomes obvious that this will not complete the election, voters will start to add approvals. They will do this according to an internal descending approval cutoff. With a series of elections, this is a powerful method. The single Bucklin ballot really does simulate a short series, essentially three such elections with three-rank Approval. In a more sophisticated version, the Bucklin ballot is the first poll in a repeated election, and my theory is that this can find a *true majority* almost always in two ballots. The second ballot has the *huge advantage* that the voters get another look, more motivate voters may show up to vote, and, if the elimination involved in listing candidates on the second ballot is fair, there is less that voters need to look at. IRV does simulate runoff voting, but a different kind of runoff voting, called sequential elimination, where the candidate with the least votes is eliminated from the ballot with each round. It's also called exhaustive runoff. So the name instant runoff is fair for both methods, but IRV is instant runoff plurality, whereas this method is instant runoff approval. The behavior is *far better,* because the behavior of approval is better than that of plurality. The name could be IRA, instead of IRAV, i.e., instant runoff approval. IRA actually should do, better, what IRV pretends to do, find majorities. When if fails, IRA is *honest about the failure,* it does not pretend to find a majority by setting aside and not counting all those ballots with votes only *against* the top two remaining. So, yes, IRA might bring up negative associations with IRV, but there are also a lot of positive associations, and runoff voting is the most common advanced voting system in use, and Bucklin balloting and amalgamation *improves* runoff voting instead of trying to kill it. It should *reduce* runoffs. How much it will do that, we are not certain. But it is a cheap method to amalgamate, it's just the sum of votes in each rank, and those can be added up precinct by precinct. (IRV gets *very complicated*, and a single mistake in some precinct can require recounting *all the other precincts.*) So, without being thoroughly aware of these conditions, Benjamin, your opinions are still valuable as to first impressions. The name of Approval voting we have already decided to promote, and it's been on the table for many years as a major proposal, with some implementations in organizations. The Bucklin method is also very old, in fact, going back to Condorcet himself, around 1800. Bucklin is named after James Bucklin, who promoted and saw applied his method in Grand Junction, Colorado, in 1909, and it became all the rage, seeing something like ninety implementations around the U.S. The method described is being considered as a suggested *second reform*, after approval is adopted. This may well already be in a runoff environment. Under some conditions, it might be a first reform. It *is* an old method. I was tried and it worked, and it was not ended because it did not work. A proper study of why Bucklin was disadopted has never been done, but it's obvious from my research. Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] [CES #8791] Upper-Bucklin naming (was: Median systems, branding....)
At 09:57 PM 6/15/2013, Jameson Quinn wrote: 2013/6/15 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com At 07:52 PM 6/14/2013, Jameson Quinn wrote: So. Abd and I now agree that a Bucklin system which uses just the above-median votes to break ties is probably the best first step towards median voting. Let's stop saying it that way. I'd be happy to. What do you propose, in 8 words or less? A few more words, probably, particularly since you used more. Bucklin is a ranked approval system, where approvals are categories into ranks in order of preference. In a modern Bucklin system, voters may categorize as many candidates in each rank as they choose, may skip ranks, and candidates not voted for explicitly are considered not approved for election. Votes are amalgamated by canvassing the first rank, checking for a majority, and then proceeding to add in the next ranked votes, in sequence, until a majority is found or the ranks are exhausted. This system can produce a multiple majority, and a concern when this occurs is that voters may ahve over-enthusiastically added additional approvals, not realizing that they were in the majority as to their higher preference. Fear of this can discourage adding additional approvals, and thus encourage majority failure. Hence, with this proposed Bucklin variant, if a multiple majority is found, below the first rank, the votes from that rank are removed from the totals and the win is awarded to the majority-approved candidate with the most votes in the previous-canvassed rank. (If a majority is found in the first rank, to be explicit, the win goes to the candidate with the most votes.) However, I'm not *entirely* on board this. It violates long-standing traditions about multiple majorities. I am willing to *consider* it, under the limitation of a deterministic method. I've suggested we need more data. Both ties and median introduce concepts which are either complex or unfamiliar. Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
