Another election method
-
Hello, I am experimenting with a different type of election method and was curious to get the thoughts of others. If you have a moment, I would be interested in feedback.
-
@cse4129 I took a brief look and will check in more detail, but from the initial look it reminds me of Bucklin voting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucklin_votingThis is an exploratory discussion about mapping out voting systems, I think it’s good to be familiar with the major systems described there and generally what kinds of properties they have:
https://www.votingtheory.org/forum/topic/280/map-of-voting-systems?_=1775264773769 -
@cfrank Thank you for looking at it. I really appreciate it. It has been a while since I looked at Bucklin voting. I will take a look.
-
@cse4129 no problem, that’s what forums are for! Your idea is good, it just happens it was already invented. It also does have some problems/failed properties, though (like any method).
For example, it isn’t Condorcet compliant or Condorcet loser compliant, and it fails participation. It doesn’t satisfy independence of clones either, and it fails various other binary criteria. That doesn’t mean it’s a bad method, but it means it can occasionally produce pathological results. It satisfies the majority winner and majority loser criterion, and later-no-help.
There’s a “mind map” I made some years ago of some of the best-known/characterized voting systems in terms of the binary criteria they satisfy and fail in that discussion above. Probably nowadays I would make a better one (I might at some point). I should have done something like PCA or a graph embedding, but I tried to make that map before I knew about those analysis methods.