That's good. You may even remove the "Hiveism substack" in the text and just keep the foot note if this makes it more readable.

Since every voter can vote for only one candidate, votes are a limited resource that candidates compete over. This turns campaigning into a zero-sum game. Candidates with similar political values must compete against each other. They split the votes, which benefits their mutual opponent.

Thank you, your quote helped the article, a plurality votes as a limited resource does explain some of the current rancor.

People diss voting systems that have not yet been used in public elections, even though the two systems with the most current use, plurality and IRV, have been found wanting.

On the other hand, dishonest teaming shouldn't happen, since it is only profitable for the candidate who wins, not for the ones who lose nevertheless. Besides, in close battles, the very fact of dishonest teaming can outrage the voters (especially the supporters of the still losing candidate) and affect their preferences enough to change the whole situation.

I do not understand this part:

Use quadratic voting to pick the best remaining candidate. (Rebrand it as equal-weight voting, by framing it as taking each ballot and dividing by its "weight"—i.e. sum of squares.)

@toby-pereira said in Condorcet // Score:

Under Condorcet//Score, the winner could be a candidate outside the top cycle.

But she would be the Score winner, so not a bad outcome.

Not necessarily a bad outcome in its own right, but it makes the method more discontinuous than it needs to be. A candidate who isn't in the running can suddenly win because those that are in the running get too close to each other.

This of course doesn’t necessarily stop turkey raising and burial from happening, but the non-linearity introduces significantly more severe deterrence against burial and turkey raising for a rational voter. At the same time, SQNV frequently elects the Condorcet winner (I would say “more frequently than score” for example, but that would be based anecdotally on the examples I’ve observed).

I think one step for analysis would be to see if SQNV elects the Condorcet winner in cases where Borda does not. My guess is that this happens quite often, which would be a heuristic indication that SQNV generally has better burial resistance than Borda.

Which voters are going to have their votes diluted by such a procedure?

In reply to this, you might be interested to note that, based at least on my own observations of the symmetrized version, it is the bullet-voters and min-maxers who will have the advantages of their tactical behavior reduced in favor of a broader consensus, in a fashion very similar to what would be expected in a Condorcet method. However, the method is not Condorcet compliant, I found a counter-example.

…& any forum that includes voting strategy doesn’t need to avoid voting-strategy specifics.

@lime said in Super-STAR: Dynamically rescaled score runnoff:

@kaptain5 The ideal would be to find a somewhat-objective normalization with a mechanism like quadratic voting or VCG. Each voter has to "pay for" their rating points by giving something up (like votes they could cast in another election).

No, because that's exactly the problem with choose-one plurality. I have as a voter the right to support and oppose so many candidates via my vote as I support and oppose in my political stance or judgment. Choose-one plurality single-winner voting says I have to pay a "cost", which is the entirety of my precious vote, as soon as I support one candidate. Support and opposition must be free of cost, because I am a citizen and deserve a full vote, the same as any other citizen.

I think the thread you linked is based on a misunderstanding. The quadratic voting penalty is applied across different races, not in the same one. So, for example, you can either cast 10 votes for President, or you could cast 5 for President, 5 for Governor, 5 in some ballot initiative, and 5 in Congress. (Adds to 100.)

The squared-cost penalty is chosen so you'll honestly reveal your relative preferences across different issues, under an impartial culture model. I assume you could do better than an impartial culture model, but the point is more that you should be able to trade influence across decisions to have a bigger impact on the issues where your preferences are stronger.

In this case, I mean that a candidate is either supported or not supported by a voter according to the support cutoff of their ballot. I’m using the word “support” rather than “approval,” because I don’t think approval is an appropriate word philosophically (or mathematically). The positive emotional connotation of “approve” is all that bothers me. “Support” seems more emotionally neutral and has a mathematical meaning that aligns well with what is happening in the system, for example, “the support of a distribution.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Support_(mathematics)

The quantity of support of a candidate is simply the number of voters who formally support that candidate on their ballot.

Here is another attempt at a modification. In sequence, if there is a Condorcet loser, they are eliminated. If there is no Condorcet loser, a candidate with the least quantity of support is eliminated, with ties broken by rank runoff if possible. Repeat until one candidate remains.

2CV now ensures, unlike any other proposed system, that the winner will, under all circumstances, be one who received at least 51% of 1st or 2nd choice votes.

A voters 2nd choice may be as good as their favorite or almost as bad as their last choice. There's no way to know, so ensuring a majority of 1st and 2nd choice votes is meaningless. Also, in any election where you can support multiple candidates there could be multiple majority supported options. The key is to find the one with the most support by looking at strength of support and/or number of voters who prefer them, ideally both.

I think we've already gone in circles about your other responses in previous conversations so I won't repeat that again here.

@cfrank, Ouch!

OK, then, how about this one?

Collect Score-style ballots. If there is a Condorcet winner, elect her. Otherwise, elect the straight Score winner.

I think Smith//Score is better than Condorcet//Score. Condorcet//Score could elect the Condorcet loser.

Or what I was discussing here, which I think is just Landau//Score. But maybe that's getting a bit complex.

After that, the rest is just tie-breaking, so if you're not using Copeland any more, it's not such a worry.

With the Borda count, although it's normal to give points to positions in a linear manner, it is equivalent to just summing the margins of the head-to-head wins so it looks equivalent to this Dasgupta/Maskin score. It's rare you'll reach that stage if you use ranked pairs. You'll almost never have to use your scores. So at this point, it's a case of just picking your favourite Condorcet method.

I wonder how it all washes out in more realistic scenarios, but it's valid to consider someone putting themselves on the ballot and literally not telling anyone just to then score themselves 5 stars. Perhaps there's some kind of balancing that can be built in, but I suspect, on the general advice of James Quinn, that that would likely cause new problems.

A>B>C [99%]
C>B>A [1%]

Which is absurd. And without strict rankings, the majority can guarantee their top candidate’s victory by bullet voting anyway. I don’t like it but it is what it is. I think you’ve convinced me.

3: A > B > C
3: B > C > A
3: C > A > B

What evaluation does each faction put on its middle candidate, honestly?

I understand this problem, altough I doubt simplicity of voting methods or rationality in general will prevent this.

It won't prevent it, but it would help in terms of adoption when there is already resistance coming from people who think they'd lose power if such a system is enacted.

But yeah, from what I know of the political system of The Netherlands, all of this should be a lot easier there. I envy you.

Some may say, why a logistic mapping and not a linear mapping? I ask them, why a linear mapping? I think fineness near the top will provide needed support to lesser-evil candidates in case true favorites don't win. Of course, any mapping from ranking to rating is imperfect and presumptuous, but I'm suggesting this as one of the least bad from the viewpoint of defeating two-party dominance (2PD) and as a sop to RCV advocates. They don't seem to appreciate the benefits of collecting actual scores from voters. And my example to try to show the importance of that is to compare the meaning and intent of Score votes Gore 0, Bush 1, Nader 100 vs. Gore 0, Bush 99, Nader 100. These would affect the pairwise scores of the candidates very differently in Score, but in RCV with whatever tallying, would collapse to the same vote Nader > Bush > Gore.

The score of A relative to B is the count of voters who prefer A over B minus the count of voters who prefer B over A.