Forest--
The Approval cutoff is between the two expected frontrunners, and is adjacent to the one that is expected to outpoll the other.
[end of suggested rewording of BF(1st)]
You wrote:
This wording is the best I've seen for introducing the concept, but it doesn't tell what to do when (1) neither of the two frontrunners is preferred over the other by the voter
I reply:
But does it matter, as long as the voter is instructed to make his Approval cutoff between the likely top two? He knows which one to have on which side of that cutoff.
You continued:
, or what to do in the case (2) when the two frontrunners are considered equally likely to win.
I reply:
But then one can't use that strategy, it seems to me. Then the Approval cutoff should be at the mean of those 2 expected frontrunners. So then use the BF(mean) strategy instead of the BF(1st) strategy.
You continued:
For each candidate C, if you think the winner is more likely to come from the set of candidates that are worse than C than from the set of candidates that are better than C, then approve C, else don't.
I reply:
But ideally iit should take into account the liklihood of which it will be, and how much better or worse that will be than C would be. That's my Expected Differences strategy. But if one doesn't have those estimates, then sure, the strategy that you described above is an easier version of my Expected Differences strategy. I like it. It's easier to offer to people. the Better or Worse strategy.
Mike Ossipoff
_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfeeŽ Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
