Topics created by Keith Edmonds

@keith-edmonds This is a good find.

Sounds good. I have thought over the problem of cutting out too many candidates with a large percentage of the vote in their ridings. Maybe re-programming my computer again to limit the party percentage to 5 and limiting the riding percentage to 10 will help people be more acceptable to the system although it would restrict smaller parties and independents.

@keith-edmonds OK, I made a page for it here. https://electowiki.org/wiki/Voting_Theory_Forum

Do you know if the quota updates between rounds?

I do not believe in this method that was the intent but perhaps there is something more slick that could be done incorporating the ideas of Sequentially Shrinking Quota.

The RRV reweighting scheme doesn't decrease the total number of votes by a quota each time, so it could change.

The RRV system has more issues than that as is pointed out in the Single distributed vote page. So the potential system here is a way to combine the changing quota idea in Sequentially Shrinking Quota, the balanced reweighting from Single distributed vote and the selection from Sequential Monroe. It may not be possible but if I find some time it might be straight forward. The issue with Sequentially Shrinking Quota was always the calculation of quota size but reweighting gives some insight there.

My initial reaction was that this system would discourage the use of the middle of the range, because if you give some points to a candidate but are not in the quota, then you pay for that candidate but don't contribute to their election.

As I pointed out in my first post a mismatch between selection and exhaustion/allocation is likely to cause strategic vulnerabilities. The vote management things you highlight could sink the system. However, there are many strategies people can use and it remains unclear (at least to me) how their effectiveness balances out. A weak exploit which is easy and obvious may be better or worse than a strong but rare exploit. These are things we cannot really simulate. Things like vote management require a group effort and that relies on the organizational abilities and cohesiveness of factions. I suspect the worst exploits are those which are obvious to a single voter and unlikely to back fire.

Independent of if it is viable in the real world it would be a great extension of the field to have a system like the one I propose. It is good to compare and contrast.

Yes, I picked up on the same. I did say fairly neutral. I did not get the impression this was propaganda or misrepresentations.

@SaraWolk said in What level of PR do different systems get?:

What's SNTV?

https://electowiki.org/wiki/Single_non-transferable_vote

@SaraWolk said in What level of PR do different systems get?:

Re Party List vs. nonpartisan PR, the difference there is the number of winners, not the partisanship.

Granted but if you partisan vote then the same ballot works for any number of winners. Parliaments are typically over 100 seats. You are never going to run a ballot with candidates for so many seats. So what I am saying is true in practice but not necessarily in theory.

@SaraWolk said in What level of PR do different systems get?:

I have no idea where exactly STAR or Cumulative should go, or which order they would go in. I'd like to think they should be reversed, but I also have no basis for that.

I do not have the time to write simulation code. If only there were universities who would sponsor people to study this.

I've been looking at this and I don't think it is the best. One (minor) problem is that when you're summing the scores, for voters that haven't had any candidates elected and also gave a score of 0 to the candidate in question, you get 0/0. Obviously you just need to count it as 0 to get it to work, but it can make one suspicious that there are problems lurking beneath.

But the main problem is that it fails scale invariance. Well it passes in a multiplicative way as it is defined on the wiki, but not if you add to the scores.

For example, if everyone scores 1 to 10 instead of 0 to 9 (so just adds 1 to every score), you can get a different result. KP + SPAV (also known as Sequential Proportional Score Voting or SPSV) passes this. I know it might seem unsatisfactory to "split" the voter with KP, but in terms of passing criteria, it seems to do the job.

@keith-edmonds https://www.votingtheory.org/forum/topic/241/zero-knowledge-encryption-using-in-voting-methods?_=1664064515062

@Jack-Waugh I think you are talking about Bloc Score which would be easy to tabulate in excel. However, we want a system which gets a stable winner set. I do not know how to do any of the standard ones in excel in a simple way. I wonder what system Clay implemented. It might have been RRV.

Also, the Groups page lists which accounts have admin/mod privileges. Since it's tied to the forum software, it will update automatically.

I'm not sure why we can't have proxy representation; it seems to me to give the people more power than merely filling seats does.

But anyway, assuming proxy is off the table, what is the most important criterion for choosing among proportional voting systems?

Yes this is what I want. Thanks!