For now, I just read upto directly before "Relationship between MJ and CMJ (highly technical)", I will continue later; but I have some small comments:

1. In the introduction to the section User:Homunq/WP_voting_systems#Mechanics, with CMJ B is the winner, not A, also "median" in the computation of the score of B should be 3, not 1.
2. In User:Homunq/WP_voting_systems#Desirable_characteristics it is stated, that point 2 is connected to LNH. I don't see this connection.
3. In the text there is sometimes and exclamation mark before some words, e.g. "!Voters", "!vote". Does this has a special meaning?

Best wishes, --Arno Nymus (talk) 15:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stopping by.

1: oops, fixed.

2: LNHe can be taken as a guarantee that burial strategy will not work; LNHa as a guarantee that truncation won't work. Both of these will, all else equal, reduce voters' tendency to use strategy. (Yes, I consider certain kinds of LNHa failure, such as MJ's failure, to be a minor factor here; but there's still arguably a connection, however weak.)

3: WP:VOTE. I'll try to explain this in the text.

Homunq (talk) 16:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to do something like this, but it needs work:

—scratch, moved to page— Homunq (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable?

Comments on the above? Homunq (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit I'm quite confused with the results calculation. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it needs work to make it clear graphically what's happening. The equations are just a way to confuse yourself, you need a graphical intuitive understanding... Homunq (talk) 04:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need another criteria - which is that the voting system produces a guaranteed winner - e.g. for Condorcet there isn't always a winner. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's part of number 4. As for "Condorcet" failing it, that's why I refer to Condorcet systems in plural; that is, the various different Condorcet completion methods which do resolve. Homunq (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. My mistake. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any system which gives people the option of increasing the effect of their vote by prefixing it with strong is wide open to gaming. The logical tactic in such systems is always to express a strong vote for or against whenever you vote. Where you have multiple candidates/options then you can rank them in order of preference and there are several systems such as STV that cover that including some systems that work well. But allowing people to have three first choices and two fifth choices is not going to give as good a system as getting people to rank candidates 1-5. ϢereSpielChequers 00:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above commenter has utterly failed to understand this proposal. Or perhaps I've failed to explain it. Either way, the truth is: changing a vote on a winning proposal from "oppose" to "strong oppose" will NOT affect the results in any way; and the only way changing from "support" to "strong support" could possibly matter is if the principal difference between the top two options is the amount of strong support they receive, in which case is is entirely appropriate to adjudicate based on that difference.

As if that weren't enough, this commenter also failed to note that a voter who simply forgot the word "strong" in all cases would have it inferred in the counting.

Essentially, this is an argument in favor of desirable characteristic #2. It therefore would cut clearly in favor of MJ over Range and Condorcet over Borda or IRV. It also weakly favors MJ over Condorcet over Approval. Homunq (talk) 15:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is simply that the proposal is over complex. But why in the section mechanics do you start "Voters would be encouraged to class the options into no more than 5 groups: those they "strongly support", those they "support", those they find "neutral", those they "oppose", and those they "strongly oppose"" if you don't intend to give any extra weight to those "strong" votes? Either this needs to come out as !voting strong has no effect, or it does have an effect and my criticism stands. By the way you've dropped the "weak" option which we currently have. Sometimes people use this as a valid option just one side or the other of neutral. ϢereSpielChequers 16:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As to complexity: I understand that this is a problem. I can only respond that the proposal considers literally every plausible alternative, and finds each of them inferior in one or more specific ways. (OK, I didn't specifically address Condorcet-like non-Condorcet systems, but everything I said about Condorcet applies to these as well.)

As to strategic exaggeration: The only plausible¹ way that would make a difference is if the election came down to two generally-supported options that simply had different levels of support. In that case, over half of the people are supporting each option, so some people must be supporting both. The distinctions those "both are good" voters make between support and strong support are in general honest, not exaggerated; and in fact are in my opinion the best way to decide the matter; so in this case I think Majority Judgment is doing the right thing.

¹I include the weaselly "plausible" because there are two other ways it could theoretically matter, both of which I find completely implausible. One is that if two options are exactly tied in SS, S, and N, then the difference between their SO and O scores could matter. Such a precise tie on three variables at once is wildly improbable. The other is that the two best options have a median below neutral, and so the difference between their O and SO scores matters. But this is implausible because I believe that any closing administrator would rather find "no consensus" than choose a winning option whose median vote is some form of opposition.

(Note: you may have noticed that I've essentially argued that the difference between O (opposition) and SO (strong opposition) will never matter. You could then ask why allow the difference if it never matters. The reason is that people will vote more honestly if they can do so and still express all the distinctions which matter to them. Allowing the O/SO distinction will therefore help us understand the issues and could help motivate a creative, consensus-seeking proposal.)

As to the "weak" option: it would be easy to include it; it would take no changes to the basic voting system. However, it would make counting things a bit harder; especially when !voters don't use the right magic words (which some never will). On balance, I'd guess it's not worth it, but I could be convinced otherwise.

So, does all that make sense? Any other questions? And if not, do you still "strongly oppose" this idea? Homunq (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding weak support: I suspect that most people use only 2 options out of "strong", "weak", and flat. In that case, it would be easy to translate whatever 2 options are used into the 2 that are available. Homunq (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]