@rob Very late to this conversation but what you're describing is exactly the Dasgupta-Maskin method[1] which is just Copeland with a Borda tie breaker. This method has actually been used in figure skating competitions under the name of "one by one"[2]

There are different version of Copeland depending on how you wanna score wins, ties, and losses. Most commonly used is probably the 1/½/0 (1 point for wins, 0.5 points for ties, 0 for losses) method but Lull proposed a 1/1/0 method and 3/1/0 is commonly used in sports. But it seems like you're just using a 1/0/0 Copeland here

This system can also be compared to Black's which is essentially just Condorcet with Borda tiebreaker

[1] https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/maskin/files/voting.pdf
[2] https://sci-hub.se/10.1287/opre.2014.1269

@keith-edmonds Sorry, but I don't really understand this criticism. The initial voting system blocks were Plurality (fptp the default) and Runoff (IRV the default). IMO these are the two most popular voting systems. I'm not sure if you've read the "explanation" texts, but I feel like there's a very clear and natural progression for all of them. I introduced the 2 most popular methods and then slight variations on them. Yes "coombs" is much less known than "approval" but if someone has already put in the effort to understand IRV, it's really easy to say "coombs is the same thing but instead you drop the most hated candidate each round" than to introduce an entirely new voting system. After FPTP and IRV, I wrote contingency (along with some of its variations) which I'd also say is extremely popular given that the primary/general system is widely used and its an abstraction of that so it's easy to explain.

The whole pattern here is:

1. introduce some popular voting system
2. show them some ways you can modify it and see how that'd change the outcome
3. introduce another voting system (and maybe explain what it does that the previous block didn't)

But anyways, if you MUST know why I really wrote them in the way that I did, it's actually because I've done this project twice. The first time (what I call the prototype) I did it pretty much exactly as you were saying where I started off writing only the most well known voting methods first. It eventually got to the point of 26 voting methods. One major thing I realized is that if I cached the results of other methods, I could make some massive efficiency gains. E.g. no need to calculate the Borda score twice for STAR and Borda when I could reuse the results of the calculation

So the central realization behind this new project is that I could make a really efficient "SuperSystem" that entangles all of these methods at once and calculates all of these results in one go and avoids repeat calculations as much as possible. Organizing the methods into "blocks" makes sense not just as an educational toy, but for the sake of developing this SuperSystem in a way that similar blocks of logic are grouped together.

Anyways, other than STAR, I feel like the latest update includes all the "canonical" popular voting methods so I hope your concerns are alleviated. I'd definitely like to implement STAR and some more Condorcet methods soon though

@rob said in votevote.page is live:

To be clear, I wasn't suggesting limiting to basic colors like that because that defeats the whole purpose. My suggestion would be pick the colors purely visually from a palette (a small 8x8 palette for 64 colors would be perfect), or using a color picker.

Oh gotchu. Yeah not a bad idea

Expecting people to set up a custom dataset is fine, if it's that kind of app.

Oh no, that's not actually what I meant. What I envision is that the default is to use the current color data. But there's a drop down to use other stuff.

For example, in Wikipedia there's a common example given of cities in Tennessee trying to elect a new capital. Each city's preferences are based on their X,Y coordinates and distance from each other. I could totally add this as a dataset as well (with even more cities probably)

And then at that point I think the logical next step is to make one of the drop down options "custom" where the user can enter arbitrary data. This might also actually make this toy somewhat useful. Like if someone already has votes from a scored election and is wondering how the outcome would've differed under a different scoring method, they can enter that data here simulate it all

But the default would still be color-based unless the user specifically decides they wanna go with something else.

@jack-waugh At the bottom of all my projects is a "Steal This" button that takes you to the source code. It's up on GitHub:

https://github.com/tif-calin/votevote/

Though I must warn you I haven't yet cleaned it up to make it easy to contribute to (planning on it when I get some free time).

All the logic happens inside this SuperElection class. The main motivation behind this is making a lot of use of cacheing to optimize these calculations. I.e. why calculate the borda score twice for Borda and for STAR when you can just calculate it once and reuse it.

So it's quite tangled up right now and not as documented as it should be

Not sure about the specific implementation, but at least mathematically it's also equivalent to combined approval voting (i.e. -1, 0, 1).

@rob said in votevote.page is live:

To be clear, I wasn't suggesting limiting to basic colors like that because that defeats the whole purpose. My suggestion would be pick the colors purely visually from a palette (a small 8x8 palette for 64 colors would be perfect), or using a color picker.

Oh gotchu. Yeah not a bad idea

Expecting people to set up a custom dataset is fine, if it's that kind of app.

Oh no, that's not actually what I meant. What I envision is that the default is to use the current color data. But there's a drop down to use other stuff.

For example, in Wikipedia there's a common example given of cities in Tennessee trying to elect a new capital. Each city's preferences are based on their X,Y coordinates and distance from each other. I could totally add this as a dataset as well (with even more cities probably)

And then at that point I think the logical next step is to make one of the drop down options "custom" where the user can enter arbitrary data. This might also actually make this toy somewhat useful. Like if someone already has votes from a scored election and is wondering how the outcome would've differed under a different scoring method, they can enter that data here simulate it all

But the default would still be color-based unless the user specifically decides they wanna go with something else.

@rob Fair, but I still don't see why it's an issue. You can remove/add whatever candidates and/or voters you'd like. If you want to limit yourself to red/green/blue/other basic colors you totally can!

Anyways all these concerns should be resolved once I have it set up so anyone can add their own custom dataset

@rob The color names are based on XKCD's average from their survey of thousands of people. I'd say the results are, by design, much closer to how people map color names to colors than what some paint company decides

PS you can preview the upcoming versions here: https://dev--votevote.netlify.app/

This week's been crazy at work so I probably won't be able to implement the color space changes until next weekend, but I have some other exciting updates already in

@paretoman Just rewatched the video. Yup my calculations do already use the geometric mean instead of the euclidean mean haha

@paretoman Thanks for sharing. I think I've actually seen this same video before haha. I have a separate side project where I'm basically trying to recreate Bjorn Ottosson's color picker across multiple colorspaces:

https://bottosson.github.io/misc/colorpicker/

I don't really have anything original to add to this besides support for even more colorspaces. There's also some cool new CSS proposals coming in that will allow us to more easily work with some of these advanced color spaces so I'm eagerly awaiting browser adoption of those haha.

Definitely a space I'm keeping an eye on and have spent a lot of time thinking about. Hopefully that functionality will be integrated into VoteVote soon enough too

Do these still happen? @Sass?

Perhaps we can differentiate them like so:

star: top two runoff based on borda score and pairwise winner for the second round
dasgupta_maskin/one_by_one: 1/0.5/0 copeland with borda tiebreaker
reverse_star: 1/0/0 copeland with borda tiebreaker
black: simple condorcet with borda tiebreaker