Re: [EM] MJ SFR (preliminary). Score vs Approval, based on considerations discussed.
Ted: You said: Majority Judgment (MJ) and Continuous Majority Judgment (CMJ) are both Median Ratings methods. No sh*t ! :-)...But wait, isn't that explicit in their definition? As is ER-Bucklin(whole). You're probably most familiar with the latter, so let me start there. I will put ER-Bucklin into the same formulation as MJ and CMJ Ok. I've heard the claim that MJ is ER-Bucklin. Maybe it's true. MJ would probably be much easier to count than ER-Bucklin. But what would their equivalence (if valid) mean, in practical terms? There aren't many people advocating ER-Bucklin. So the equivalence, if valid, isn't a powerful argument for MJ. so you understand the terms, I assure you that it isn't hard to make terms understandable. All that's necessary is to define them clearly. You seem to contradict yourself, saying at one point that MJ is ER-Bucklin, and, at another point, that MJ will often give the same result as ER-Buckliln. You've supplied additional confirmation for the conclusion that MJ's (and CMJ's) tiebreaking bylaws are elaborate, complicated, and wordy. MJ and CMJ are so elaborately, wordily, defined that few people would be willing to listen to their definitions. In many cases, MJ, CMJ and ER-Bucklin will choose the same winner. Whoa. You earlier said that MJ _is_ ER-Bucklin. Which is it? Is MJ the same as (equivalent to) ER-Bucklin, or is it something different from ER-Bucklin that will, in many cases (but not always), choose the same answer? But, in any case, what does it matter, since few advocate Bucklin anyway? If you want to compare the merits of MJ to that of Score, then compare what MJ does to what Score does. Compare the strategy situation in MJ to that in Score. That's what the previous discussion has been about. My only comment about this is that, since your quoting style is non-standard In the posting to which you were replying, I quoted in the standard style, using and for previous text. , I really wish you'd provide a glossary of abbreviations somewhere in your message, either inline, using standard first-reference style, or at the end of your message. For example, which Chris are you referring to (Benham?) Good guess! Is there another Chris who has been a regular poster here, at any time during my current duration of membership at EM? Or were you referring to Kristofer, who has never, so far as I'm aware, been referred to here as Chris? , what does ICT stand for, and where is ICT defined? For about the hundredth time, ICT stands for Improved-Condorcet-Top. Kevin Venzke defined ICA a long time ago, to stand for Improved-Condorcet-Approval. Improved-Condorcet-Top is the same, except that completion is by top-count instead of Approval-count. Improved Condorcet is hardly a new term here. Here is a definition of Symmetrical ICT, which I prefer to ordinary ICT: (XY) means the number of ballots ranking X over Y (YX) means the number of ballots ranking Y over X. (X=Y)T means the number of ballots ranking X and Y in 1st place. (X=Y)B means the number of ballots ranking X and Y at bottom (not ranking X or Y over anything) X beats Y iff (XY) + (X=Y)B (YX) + (X=Y)T 1. If one candidate beats everyone else, then s/he wins. 2. If everyone or no one is unbeaten, then the winner is the candidate ranked in 1st place on the most ballots. 3. If some, but not all, candidates are unbeaten, then the winner is the unbeaten candidate ranked in 1st place on the most ballots. [end of Symmetrical ICT definition] I've posted, at EM, pseudocode for a Symmetrical ICT count program. I've also posted it at minguo, where it can be found among the recent posts, at the USA Realm. By the way, you needn't answer any of my comments You're too kind. You're hearby permitted to not answer this posting. Mike Ossipoff Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] MJ SFR (preliminary). Score vs Approval, based on considerations discussed.
On 11 Sep 2012 13:18:23 -0700, Michael Ossipoff wrote: Ted: You said: Majority Judgment (MJ) and Continuous Majority Judgment (CMJ) are both Median Ratings methods. No sh*t ! :-)...But wait, isn't that explicit in their definition? As is ER-Bucklin(whole). You're probably most familiar with the latter, so let me start there. I will put ER-Bucklin into the same formulation as MJ and CMJ Ok. I've heard the claim that MJ is ER-Bucklin. Maybe it's true. Here is where you go off track: I don't think this has ever been claimed, and certainly not by myself. MJ would probably be much easier to count than ER-Bucklin. The tabulation is essentially the same. I don't see that this is relevant. But what would their equivalence (if valid) There is no equivalence. mean, in practical terms? Your question is meaningless, because they are not equivalent. There aren't many people advocating ER-Bucklin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum So the equivalence, if valid, isn't a powerful argument for MJ. It isn't valid. Your statement is a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies#Straw_man so you understand the terms, I assure you that it isn't hard to make terms understandable. All that's necessary is to define them clearly. Apparently I have not been clear enough. You seem to contradict yourself, saying at one point that MJ is ER-Bucklin, I believe you will find that you are contradicting yourself. I never stated that. and, at another point, that MJ will often give the same result as ER-Bucklin. Voting methods can frequently agree on the same winner. That doesn't mean the methods are identical. Instead, it should increase confidence in the strength of the result. You've supplied additional confirmation for the conclusion that MJ's (and CMJ's) tiebreaking bylaws are elaborate, complicated, and wordy. My goal, which I *thought* I had stated clearly, was to help you avoid misinterpretations by being explicit. I wasn't attempting to make a persuasive argument about the merits of Majority Judgment. As you should be well aware, being unambiguous and explicit can lead to elaborate constructions. On a playing field of good will and common understanding, it is possible to use much simpler and more persuasive language. I don't think we have come to that place yet. MJ and CMJ are so elaborately, wordily, defined that few people would be willing to listen to their definitions. I think we can conclude only that you yourself are unwilling to listen to their definitions. In many cases, MJ, CMJ and ER-Bucklin will choose the same winner. Whoa. You earlier said that MJ _is_ ER-Bucklin. See above. (Mis-)Proof by repetition. Which is it? Is MJ the same as (equivalent to) ER-Bucklin, or is it something different from ER-Bucklin that will, in many cases (but not always), choose the same answer? The latter. The former is clearly nonsensical, as you have asserted repeatedly. But, in any case, what does it matter, since few advocate Bucklin anyway? A: There is a reasonable interpretation. B: You choose to ignore it, again using argumentum ad populum. C: Even your argumentum ad populum is incorrect. The problem with the term Bucklin is that it has been applied to several different methods over a century. ER-Bucklin has relaxed conditions that avoid some of the problems of other formulations. It is still not a perfect method. However, since most people cite more limited versions of Bucklin, the popular understanding is mostly used for negative contrast with the citer's preferred method. Balinski and Laracki have sought to make a mathematically rigorous argument to support a particular form of median ratings. They appear to be winning a much larger audience, in part because of large scale studies that support their conclusions. If you want to compare the merits of MJ to that of Score, then compare what MJ does to what Score does. Compare the strategy situation in MJ to that in Score. That's what the previous discussion has been about. I was not discussing the merits of Majority Judgment. I merely intended to clarify the algorithm for you. I seem to have failed. Please continue your discussions re merits with the other MJ advocates. [... Here Ossipoff elides the entirety of section 2 from his first method in this thread that my next quote refers to ...] My only comment about this is that, since your quoting style is non-standard, In the posting to which you were replying, I quoted in the standard style, using and for previous text. I think you will find that in the message I replied to, there were no quotations at all. I really wish you'd provide a glossary of abbreviations somewhere in your message, either inline, using standard first-reference style, or at the end of your message. For example, which Chris are you referring to (Benham?) Good guess! Is there another Chris who has been a regular poster here, at any
Re: [EM] MJ SFR (preliminary). Score vs Approval, based on considerations discussed.
Ok. I've heard the claim that MJ is ER-Bucklin. Maybe it's true. Here is where you go off track: I don't think this has ever been claimed, and certainly not by myself. Fine. They aren't equivalent. Issue resolved, and subject closed. But what would their equivalence (if valid) There is no equivalence. mean, in practical terms? Your question is meaningless, because they are not equivalent. Ok then, since they aren't equivalent, then what would their similarity, or their tendency to, in many cases, choose the same candidate, mean, in practical terms. There aren't many people advocating ER-Bucklin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum No, I'm not using argumentum ad populum. But, you evidently were trying to use it, when you tried to defend MJ by saying that, in many cases, it chooses like ER-Bucklin. If someone wants to claim (but maybe you weren't) that MJ is good because it emulates ER-Bucklin then I claim that that claim would need at least one person (you) who thinks that ER-Bucklin is good. Argumentum ad se? :-) Of course you'd have to then tell _why_ you think ER-Bucklin is good enough to make MJ good, when MJ chooses like ER-Bucklin. But it doesn't matter whether you defending MJ by implying that MJ is good because it sometimes emulates ER-Bucklin and lots of people like ER-Bucklin--or whether you're instead defending MJ by implying that MJ is good because it sometimes emulates ER-Bucklin and ER-Bucklin is good. If it's the latter, then it wouldn't be unfair for me to ask who thinks that ER-Bucklin is good enough to make MJ good-by-association. Not even you? One would hope that, if you wanted to imply that MJ is good because it sometimes chooses like ER-Bucklin, then you'd have some more _objective_ way of telling why you think that ER-Bucklin is good, and wouldn't rely on invoking argumentum ad populum. What's that you say? You weren't trying to imply that MJ is good, when saying that it sometimes chooses like ER-Bucklin? Fine. Then it isn't entirely clear for what purpose you stated that MJ, in many cases, chooses like ER-Bucklin. ...Or why you devoted so much space to demonstrating some sort of similarity or relation that the two methods have. If MJ can be shown to be somehow similar to or related to ER-Bucklin, thenso what? So the equivalence, if valid, isn't a powerful argument for MJ. It isn't valid. Your statement is a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies#Straw_man No, I wasn't using the straw-man technique. I genuinely assumed that you were wanting to establish similarity, relation, or often-same-results, to show that MJ has merit-by-association. As I said, if you weren't doing that, then it's unclear why you told us that MJ in many cases chooses like ER-Bucklin, and devoted so much space to demonstrate some sort of similarity or relation between MJ and ER-Bucklin. If you weren't trying to do that, then that's fine. so you understand the terms, I assure you that it isn't hard to make terms understandable. All that's necessary is to define them clearly. Apparently I have not been clear enough. Quite. But that's ok. As I said, you've confirmed what I'd said about MJ's tiebreaking bylaws. You seem to contradict yourself, saying at one point that MJ is ER-Bucklin, I believe you will find that you are contradicting yourself. I never stated that. Fine. MJ and ER-Bucklin aren't equivalent. Voting methods can frequently agree on the same winner. That doesn't mean the methods are identical. Instead, it should increase confidence in the strength of the result. Not quite sure what you mean by that. Saying that MJ frequently agrees with ER-Bucklin doesn't increase confidence in the strength (?) of MJ's result unless you've established why, and in what sense, we should have confidence in the strength of ER-Bucklin's result. ER-Bucklin is an unlimited-rankings generalization of MCA. I've said that that unlimited rankings generalization isn't justified. In fact, I suspect that the version of ER-Bucklin that you were saying that MJ is similar to, is related to, or often agrees with, wasn't even the same ER-Bucklin defined at electowiki (the one with the delay added, in order to gain MMC compliance). Not that it matters. You've supplied additional confirmation for the conclusion that MJ's (and CMJ's) tiebreaking bylaws are elaborate, complicated, and wordy. My goal, which I *thought* I had stated clearly, was to help you avoid misinterpretations by being explicit. Good. That's a good goal. Brevity doesn't help any, when it's ambiguous. And no, I'm not asking you to keep on explaining MJ's tiebreaking bylaws more and more explicitly and unambiguously till I understand them. That's ok. As I said, it's already been shown that they can't be stated briefly and unambiguously. That's good enough. You don't have to do more than that. I wasn't attempting to make a persuasive argument about the merits of Majority
