�
While it's interesting that Score Voting requires too much information and evaluation from voters (in my opinion, voters are not the same as Winter Olympic judges) and Approval Voting requires too little information from voters, both Score and Approval impose upon voters the same
tactical burden of deciding what to do with their second-choice candidate.
Since voters don't want their contingency candidate to defeat their favorite candidate, how highly should voters score or even approve their second-choice?
Ranked-Choice ballots do not suffer this inherent
tactical-voting problem.� Voters know what to do with their favorite candidate and they know what to do with their second favorite candidate and they know what to do with the candidate they dislike the most.
r b-j

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------

Subject: Re: [EM] Comprehensive, Simple, and Informative Indicative Voting Method:: MJ is best

From: "Toby Pereira" tdp201b@yahoo.co.uk

Date: Mon, April 1, 2019 3:04 pm

To: "steve bosworth" stevebosworth@hotmail.com

"EM list" election-methods@electorama.com

approvals.�https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47781009�And I don't think parliament would be happy using an option because it received the median rating slightly-less-awful rather than just plain-awful. If it was to be expected that several options would get over 50% approvals then MJ
might be quite a useful tool to distinguish between them, but at the moment a bigger concern is to simply get one thing that the majority of parliament is behind.

From: steve bosworth stevebosworth@hotmail.com

Voting Method. Please see below a more detailed explanation of how MJ works.I'm surprised that no-one has addressed my exact suggestion that Majority Judgment (MJ) would seem to provide a superior method.�Instead, SCORE voting, using 0—100 was suggested by William.�This suggestion
does not take into account that most people cannot distinguish between more than about 7 levels of desired human behavior. Balinski & Laraki discuss this (pp.171, 169, 283, 306, 310, & 389) with regard to G.A. Miller’s 1956 article: The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some
limits on our capacity for processing information.Psychological Review 63: 89-97.� This is why MJ’s use of only 6 grades from Excellent to Reject are more meaningful and discerning.�Also, these grades are more meaningful than numbers 1—6.�At the same time, unlike MJ,
APPROVAL and SCORE would not guarantee the discovery of a BREXIT option that is supported by an absolute majority of all the voters' highest grades.Please give any of your criticisms of MJ in this regard.From: steve bosworth stevebosworth@hotmail.com

how highly all the MPs grade each of the options.Majority Judgment would allow the Commons to decide on one of the many options by an absolute majority as a result of counting one ballot from each of the MPs.� Each MP is simply asked to “grade” as many of the options listed as
either Excellent (ideal), Very Good, Good, Acceptable, Poor, or “Reject”.� Each option not explicitly graded is counted as “Reject” by that voter.� The same grade can be given to more than one choice.As a result, all the options will have received the same number of
grades, but a different set.� The winner is the choice that has received an absolute majority of grades that are equal to, or higher than, the highestmedian-grade given to any of the choices.The median-grade of each option is found as follows:��Place all the grades, high to low, top
to bottom, in side-by-side columns, the name of each option at the top of each of these columns.��The median-grade for each option is the grade located half way down each column (i.e. in the middle if there is an odd number of voters, the lower middle if the number is even).If more than
one option has the same highest median-grade, the MJ winner is discovered by removing (one-by-one) any grades equal in value to this grade from each tied option’s total until only one is currently found to retain the highest remaining median-grade.Also in contrast to ranking the options, the
above Majority Judgment method does not eliminate any option before the Absolute Majority winner is discovered.� Therefore, only Majority Judgment would guarantee that a majority winner would be found.

�
�
�

--

r b-j� � � � � � � � � � � � �rbj@audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

�
�
�
�

�
you're right Toby.� MP's can be expected to take on the burden that Olympic figure-skating judges do and consider deeply and convert their subjective impressions into numerical ratings.
But They're Partisans!!� They do not want their second-choice preference to defeat
their first-choice preference.� That will also affect how they adjust their Scores for each option that is neither their favorite option nor their most-hated option.

so i do not extend sympathy to MP's for being "burdened" with a tactical decision in their vote (as i do to regular citizen voters), but the issue still remains.� what keeps MP's from voting strategically, rather than sincerely, and a perverse Score outcome
results?
bestest,
r b-j
(And i just cannot resist saying that pro-Brexit Brits are almost as silly and harmful as Trumpers are in the U.S.� �Whatta goddamn shame.)

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------

Subject: Re: [EM] Comprehensive, Simple, and Informative Indicative

From: "Toby Pereira" tdp201b@yahoo.co.uk

Date: Mon, April 1, 2019 3:40 pm

To: "rbj@audioimagination.com" rbj@audioimagination.com

"EM list" election-methods@electorama.com

actually think of it.

�
�
�

--

r b-j� � � � � � � � � � � � �rbj@audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

�
�
�
�

The most basic problem in this situation has nothing to do with choosing
among approval voting, score voting, the alternative vote, the Condorcet
criterion, or anything else. It's to determine what options should (and
shouldn't) be on the ballot.

Parliament's most conspicuous failure in this regard (in which they are
joined by the entire press corps, as far as I know) is to treat a second
referendum as it if were an alternative on a list of alternatives. The
question whether to put a decision of Parliament to a confirmatory vote
of the people is entirely separate from what decision Parliament should
make. The questions are politically interrelated, in the sense that MPs
on the losing end of a debate in Parliament are far more likely to call
for a referendum than MPs who won that debate. (In fact, that's kind of
what referenda are, at least in the United States.) But this
relationship is no reason to include a such a confirmatory vote as an
option in the current "indicative" voting process.

But that's only the beginning. There's also the question of whether to
include "unicorns" on the ballot. "Unicorn" is the term used by U.K.
politicians and commentators to denigrate proposals that they claim
cannot possibly be implemented, for example because the European Union
would never go along with them. Just asking this question makes it clear
that it's really a matter of deciding who gets to decide which proposals
are "unicorns" and which ones aren't. Good luck finding any agreement on
that.

And, finally, there's the problem of clones and near clones. How many
combinations of customs union and/or single market and/or regulatory
"alignment" and/or technological alternatives to border checkpoints are
need to insure that the ideal (and purely hypothetical) ballot includes
the option that "should" win -- whatever "should" means in the context
of voting and elections.

When people are voting on candidates to fill an office, the problem of
nominations is very different and much more manageable. A set of
qualifications can be agreed on in advance of any nominations being
made. Votes for candidates who are not actually running can be
disregarded. And so on. But when you're trying to formalize a process
for choosing among more than two policy options, what the options are is
often a crucial part of what the debate is about.

As far as I know, social choice theory and the study of voting methods
have very little to say about this problem, except in one setting.
That's the more normal kind of parliamentary procedure where everything
is laid out as motions, amendments, substitute motions and so on. The
well-understood limitations of that process -- the importance of the
order in which amendments are dealt with, the role of strategic voting,
and so on -- are exactly why we'd like to be able to vote all at once on
a list of options in the first place.

--Bob Richard

On 4/1/2019 3:57 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------

Subject: Re: [EM] Comprehensive, Simple, and Informative Indicative

From: "Bob Richard" lists001@robertjrichard.com

Date: Mon, April 1, 2019 6:40 pm

To: election-methods@lists.electorama.com

i dunno if i said this here, or if i said this at another forum.
The really stupid thing about the Brexit vote in 2016, was that it was flawed in structure in the first place.� Not every state in the U.S. has Initiative and
Referendum (like Vermont does not), but those states that do, even if they get enough signatures on the petitions to put a question on the ballot, that question must withstand some judicial scrutiny.� If the language of the question is flawed in insufficiently legalistic, if the acceptance
of the question violates the state constitution, a state court can strike it out or even modify the language a little bit before it goes on the ballot.
The 2016 Brexit question would not have cut it at all with U.S lawyers, because the terms of the exit were not well-defined.� It needed
to be planned to be two questions from the very beginning.� The first question would be similar to the sweeping, but non-specific question that had been asked (except for one important word):� Does the U.K. begin the process of exiting the European Union or not?� A majority of
"Remain" would put an end to the issue, but a majority of "Leave" would direct the government to begin the Article 50 crap and negotiate the terms.� Then, in 2 years, and with well-defined exit terms that can be put into legalistic language, that should be put on the
second referendum to ask the British people if they still want to exit with the terms that the government had negotiated.� Only if both questions were answered with "Leave" would the Brexit be fulfilled.
That's my opinion.� Whether a super-majority be required or not is
something I would let others slug out.
But there is no way that the "Exit" decision be irrevocably made without the electorate knowing what the terms and implications of the Exit are.
Otherwise, it's just fucking stupid.
(The opinion of a Yank.)� Now you Limey's get
to tell us Yanks how fucked up we are.� Because both of our countries are just screwed.
We're all so bloody screwed.�� Nothing left to do but drop your pants and bend over.

r b-j� � � � � � � � � � � � �rbj@audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

�
�
�
�

This is all insightful. In a parliamentary setting, with a majority
required for any conclusion, voting on single issues Yes/No, works very
well, and problems can be fixed. (under standard rules, any member who
voted for the majority may move reconsideration, and it takes a majority
to reconsider, so, in theory, a change that would enjoy a majority will
be reconsidered. There would then be, with the original motion back on
the floor, a motion to amend, and then the majority decides which of two
versions is to become the motion under consideration.

This all can become more efficient if polling is used, which is
apparently what the British parliament is using. A final decision will
be put to a yes/no vote, with the poll having informed the members of
the support enjoyed by the various options, but they will not be limited
to them. Parliaments do not use top-two runoff! Nor should they.

Referring complex decisions to the public is a Bad Idea, in general. It
seems democratic, but, in fact, it empowers media and those who can
buy media. Rather, if we care about genuine democracy, government by
maximized consent, we would focus on electing representatives who are
trusted, and Asset with open ballots essentially elects seats with
unanimity. That seat was unanimously the choice of a quota of voters,
or those whom they voted for). Don't trust someone to represent you in
the process, don't vote for them! Don't trust anyone? I'd suggest
therapy, one has a social disorder.

Most of the complexity of voting theory is unnecessary. As a polling
method, score is simple and easily understood and canvassed. There may
be other forms that can be used, but this is often misunderstood. If a
decision is made that was approved by less than a majority, basic
democratic process has been lost. There is no problem if the methods are
used as polls, as advisory. And I have seen a majority position, that
would have prevailed in an initial vote (by maybe two-thirds!) reversed
after a simple approval poll, when those people saw that all members
(minus only one) approved a different choice. And when the
implementation vote was made on a motion to change to the
almost-universal choice, it passed. With unanimity.

We have very bad habits in politics, in aiming for our "favorite" to
win, instead of seeking what will make society function most efficiently
and least oppressively.

I agree that it would be the responsibility of Parliament to thoroughly
deliberate the issue, not to punt to the public. However, once
Parliament has maximized its own consensus, which can include generating
minority reports, and because there was a previous referendum, respect
for the public suggests then submitting Parliament's decision to a
second referendum. The second referendum could possibly present more
than one alternative, but not too many, and every option presented
should have majority support in Parliament! (The public can then reject
them all by voting no on all of them.)

Standard democratic practice: the status quo remains until explicitly
rejected and replaced by a majority. Someone else pointed out how
defective the Brexit referendum was. I agree.

We have very primitive ideas of what democracy can and should be.

On 4/1/2019 9:40 PM, Bob Richard wrote:

[...]