@rob yeah, this is definetely an easier visual then those number-overload!
I think the easier graphics will allow more complexity in details because voters will feel they already undetsnd "enough" of it to feel good about it.
Most people don't try understanding every detail, just a good-enough-intuition.
@sass I think tiebraking rules are complex and based on intuitions, values, assumptions, (mis)understandings, personal hisorical experiences (good and bad) and this fuzziness. This makes them them very vulnerable to say bad press or campaigning of other voteting-method activists. Therefore I would prefer to adjust your method: remove all tiebraking rules and let voters vote about it on the same ballot as the main vote:
Most elections have a unique winner but sometimes ties can occur what shoud happen according to you?
1 new election
2 random selection
3 highest average ranking
4 some other tiebreak variant a
5 some other tiebreak variant b
@rob you could be right for certain contexts like a state in the US. But I live in The Netherlands and often in these forums many assumptions are made without being aware of them.
for instance:
@toby-pereira seems a method is missing that selects randomly ballots and only compares the scores of a random pair (counting only the highest scoring as a winner of that pair).
Also including a concept like : repeat until chance of statistical unrepresentativeness becomes f.i less then 0,001%
@toby-pereira definetly agree there are some good point about random elements in a voting method. Not only because - as you say - it simplifies and achieves PR but also the psychological effect on elected candidates ("luck was part of my succes") may lead to more empathy, humbleness in their policies, and dealing with colleagues and their next campaign.
@rob I understand this problem, altough I doubt simplicity of voting methods or rationality in general will prevent this.
I'm interested in electionguard software combined with a paper-printed ballot of each vote and the possibility of online checking wheather one's (still anonymous!!) vote is actually tallied. But in this case I do see a similar problem. It's designed to enhance trust but many people would probably distrust everything. For instance because of some connection to Bill Gates.
@rob you could be right for certain contexts like a state in the US. But I live in The Netherlands and often in these forums many assumptions are made without being aware of them.
for instance:
@rob you say "The main thing I think it gets wrong is that it doesn't really account for the diminishing returns on increasing complexity. I doubt that the added complexity of minimax TD over minimax is worth it, when considering issues such as "likelihood of being adopted."
I have to disagree completely. I'm convinced :
can someone explain https://arxiv.org/pdf/2208.06907 in lay terms?
@rob no, I read about it somewhere but can't find it....
There's a category of first-step-eliminations before other main popular methods that I would like as a seperate category or vote in another thread.
As an example I would like to eliminate 35% of the candidates with the lowest (average) scores.
@andy-dienes seems like this method comes from US and comparable context. Then it seems like interesting for 3-7 seats. The Netherlands has 150 seats for 20 parties. This method allone does not make much sense since it would be (almost) identical to other proportional systems. So some in between step or other solutions seems neccesary in this context.
@rob yeah, this is definetely an easier visual then those number-overload!
I think the easier graphics will allow more complexity in details because voters will feel they already undetsnd "enough" of it to feel good about it.
Most people don't try understanding every detail, just a good-enough-intuition.