Group Details Private

Forum Council

  • Tideman’s Bottom-N Runoff

    This probably already exists but I like the idea. It’s a rank order system based on Tideman’s bottom-2 runoff that proceeds recursively.

    Informal description: Eliminates Condorcet losers in steps, each time from the largest possible pool of candidates (which pool of a given size to examine must be addressed).

    1. Let N be the number of candidates.

    2. From the N candidates with the fewest first-place rankings, determine if a Condorcet loser exists.

    3. If no Condorcet loser exists, reduce N by 1 and repeat from step 1.

    4. If a Condorcet loser exists, eliminate them from the election, let N be the number of remaining candidates, and repeat from step 1 until a single candidate remains.

    Just like Tideman's Bottom-2 Runoff, this system is Condorcet compliant and also satisfies the Condorcet loser criterion. I believe this is due to Smith compliance. Variants can use alternative criteria (as opposed to the number of first-place votes) to determine which subset of candidates to examine. For example, a more general/robust method might only consider Condorcet losers among non-Bucklin winners.

    I’m actually not certain whether this system turns out to be equivalent to the bottom-2 runoff. I believe it is generally different, but I haven’t constructed a distinguishing example yet. (1/19/2023)

    The only reason for considering such a system is to enhance the robustness of the bottom-2 runoff against Condorcet-cycle induced non-monotonicity.

    posted in Single-winner
  • RE: STAR-like method ("reverse STAR"?)

    @rob I repeat, however, that there is a time limit for appending comments.

    posted in Single-winner
  • RE: STAR-like method ("reverse STAR"?)

    @rob, yes, I started to argue with him in the same direction as yours, but instead of carrying the argument all the way through, I paused in the middle of it to see whether he was following me so far. He evidently has family trouble and has had to throttle his level of attention on my responses.

    posted in Single-winner
  • RE: STAR-like method ("reverse STAR"?)

    Maybe it should be called "LLull Then Score", abbreviated LLTS.

    posted in Single-winner
  • RE: STAR-like method ("reverse STAR"?)

    Paul Cohen comments on this method (I had brought it to his attention (writing under my real name, William Waugh)). One can reply in the publication he uses if one is fast enough. After a certain timeout period, it becomes impossible to add a comment to a given article without supporting the publication with money. I don't know how many or few people read his posts.

    posted in Single-winner
  • RE: Ballot Types in Simulation

    I am posting to indicate that I have not abandoned the simulation project; I am gradually trying to progress it. I don't expect a response unless you think I have left something important out or am painting myself into a corner with the design choices I am laying out.

    I asked myself: What are we going to read from the file directories and how will what we read figure in during prompting and execution?

    At the indicative level, a voting system declares what form of ballot it requires.

    Tactics, at the indicative level, will be able to answer given a ballot form, are they capable of generating ballots conforming thereto.

    So, when the user selects a voting system, the app will offer the tactics that can produce ballots for that system.

    Since tactics will have an indicative level and an executive level, they must comprise at least two files, so it makes sense to use a directory for each tactic.

    So there will be one directory containing the subdirectories for the voting systems and one directory containing the subdirectories for the tactics. There is no need for the hierarchy of directories to reflect any kind of categorization of either. So, for example, there will not be a directory of ranking voting systems nor a directory of rating voting systems nor a directory of Condorcet-compliant voting systems, etc.

    Example declarations of ballot types:

    {
      [0]: 'rating',
      finite: false,  /* Continuous -- allows floating-point ratings. */
      min: 0,
      max: 1,
    }
    
    {
      [0]: 'rating',
      finite: true,
      range: [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5],  /* like STAR */
    }
    
    {
      [0]: 'ranking',
      equal_ranking_allowed: true,
    }
    

    Here's Approval:

    {
      [0]: 'rating',
      finite: true,
      range: [0, 1],  /* Approval */
    }
    
    posted in Simulations
  • RE: Waterfox

    @psephomancy, do you still love Waterfox Classic? There is a discussion about its future at https://www.reddit.com/r/waterfox/comments/ycavbd/is_classic_abandoned/

    posted in Issue Reports
  • RE: Ballot Types in Simulation

    @rob I prefer the current way, where it is completely parsed, to the alternative you mention, which would require further parsing (even so simple as with one .split("=")).

    posted in Simulations
  • RE: Ballot Types in Simulation posted in Simulations