Re: [EM] Fwd: U/P voting: new name for simple 3-level method.
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