On the exclusion thing (or a not by candidates' names), I suppose arguably it's not really a part of the U/P method, because it's a completely detachable module, and something like it could be applied (or not) to any voting system. It's a bit like winning votes v margins. If someone invents a Condorcet method and says it's to be used with winning votes, then it's still the "same method" if someone uses it with margins. On a related note, I see people talking about MAM a lot - but as far as I can see it's not really a method. It's just a specific form of ranked pairs! -------------------------------------------- On Thu, 8/9/16, Toby Pereira <tdp201b@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: Subject: Re: [EM] Fwd: U/P voting: new name for simple 3-level method. To: election-methods@lists.electorama.com, cbenham@adam.com.au Date: Thursday, 8 September, 2016, 23:49 This thread is getting increasingly difficult to follow. Am I to take it that the definition in the bit quoted from 9/9/2016 at 12:39 is the latest definition of U/P? As that time is currently in the future for the UK and anywhere west of it (and conveniently 9/9 means the same wherever you go), it should be fairly up-to-date! But now I see this bit about having a note by candidates' names if they got majority unacceptable in the last election - what is this madness? What does this achieve? Presumably most candidates standing would get majority unacceptable as it would probably be most people's default rating. Obviously it's better than excluding them, but unless I've missed a chunk of conversation, this seems like a fairly arbitrary punishment to hand out to losers. -------------------------------------------- On Thu, 8/9/16, C.Benham <cbenham@adam.com.au> wrote: Subject: Re: [EM] Fwd: U/P voting: new name for simple 3-level method. To: election-methods@lists.electorama.com Date: Thursday, 8 September, 2016, 20:20      On 9/9/2016 12:39 AM, Jameson Quinn        wrote:                The main advantage of U/P            voting over other systems like MJ or MCA is simplicity of            description. So I'm going to try to describe it as simply as            possible.                                    To vote, you rate each person running as "preferred",              "acceptable", or "unacceptable". You can rate any number at              each level.                                    If more than half of voters rate a person "unacceptable",              that person can't win, unless the same is true of all the              people running. Of those remaining, the winner is the one              rated "preferred" by the most voters.                                                  C:  By this definition, the U/P method uses a simple 3-slot ballot        just like MTA and MCA.                                          C:  Again, I'd be interested in seeing a plausible example              of when U/P doesn't elect the Approval winner.                            Easy.              20: A>>B>C              35: B>A>>C              45: C>>A=B                            Threshold in approval is >>. In U/P, voters are as              expressive as possible.                                            C: On 3-slot ratings ballots, how are the 20 A supporters able          to vote one unapproved candidate above the other?                On the 3-slot ballots, they vote A>B.          On the 2-slot ballots, they vote A. These are perfectly          consistent.                C: But above you are suggesting that U/P somehow uses a both a        2-slot ballot and a 3-slot ballot.  Which is it?                Actually it seems to me that the stripped-down 3-slot version (if        default rating is "Unacceptable") is actually the same method        as MTA. "Unacceptable" is just the inverse of "Approved".  Any        candidate who doesn't get a majority "Unacceptable" score must        get a majority Approval score.                  I prefer MTA's more positive wording.  In U/P it seems as though        the middle rating slot doesn't do anything.                Any candidate, including an            incumbent, who had gotten over 50% "unacceptable" in the prior            election would have a note to that effect next to their name            on the ballot. (In prior messages, I'd suggested not allowing            them on the ballot. I now think that allowing them on, but            with a note, would be better.)                C: Yes, that is far less draconian, a big improvement, and not a        big deal.  I suppose there's nothing wrong with a bit of history.                Chris Benham                                 -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info