I think the solution to the "council is too busy" issue is that people on this forum, in a thread rather than a video chat meeting, fully discuss and hopefully come to a sort of consensus on forum organization and site design issues. This should make it a lot easier on council members who are too busy to schedule a meeting.
BTW, @Jack-Waugh we do appreciate all you've done to get this forum/site running and keep it running, and understand if you want to step back a bit. The board is running great, almost no real technical issues and we've got a lot more embedding capabilities than Reddit or election methods email list. We should talk about ways we might lighten the load on you. For instance, I would be glad to do some simple mockups for tweaked/reworked site navigation, and help deploy it if approved.
@andy-dienes First, lets never associate this with Later-no-harm as I hate that property like none other.
Anyway, I have thought about this for a few days and I do not think it is possible. Just because adding constraints on the process is a non-standard concept in voting theory does not mean it should not be. In fact, it likely implies something has been missed. There may be similar constrains already implicitly applied.
In liberal theory, equality of process has traditionally been considered to equality of outcome(equity)
another way to look at the difference between EPA and AS (at least, on approval ballots) is that EPA spends ballot power such the variance in amount spent per utility gain is exactly minimized, and AS spends ballot power such that the variance in amount spent per utility is exactly maximized. Despite their similarities, in that respect they represent two ends of an extreme.
@andy-dienes This is very interesting Andy. It is similar to the conclusions we got from the original simulations which did not include strategy. By this I mean that there was a clear trade off between desirable things. We decided that this trade-off would be skewed by the strategic considerations so it was hard to choose which was best without that. We were using the term Pareto Frontier to refer to this set of trade-offs. I suspect that since the set of choices is a small number of models not a continuously variable property there is a solution which is "best".
About the interpretation, the original simulations where a histogram of the number of simulated elections showing each property. Yours show the mean (?) of each property by the % of strategy. The difference in shape of histogram was important. Particularly if you look at things like "fully satisfied voters" for allocation methods. There are a few ways to solve this. The most obvious is a 2d histogram with the axes of percent insincere and the metric in question. This would prohibit the ability to show multiple models at the same time. The other is to show different metrics other than the mean. You could for example show the standard deviation as an error bar on each point. This would also give you an idea of if the differences are "large". Note that this is not the same as if they are "significant".
For that you would need the standard error on the mean. Judging by the fluctuations between bins you seem to have run about the right amount of simulations needed to distinguish so that is likely not an issue.
To see if things like the "fully satisfied voters" goes away with strategy I would just choose a few points on the percent insincere line and make the same plots as in the original simulations. eg 0%, 25%, 50% and 75%. If the histogram shape is the same at each point then you do not need to dig deeper. I hope this makes sense
@brozai Bear in mind that this was one of the systems used to choose Allocated Score so getting the same result is not a surprise. Also, SSS performed equivalently from my recollection. Allocated Score was chosen because there was some intuition that it was better than SSS in terms of strategy.