User:RobLa/runoff: Difference between revisions

From electowiki
(rough draft of something I may work up into a real proposal)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
  +
(User:RobLa 2018-12-01) - Working version of a proposal I'm about to make on the [[election-methods mailing list]].
 
  +
== MAF and MATT ==
  +
{{see also|MAF|MATT}}
  +
  +
A couple of new voting systems I worked on in late 2018 as possible alternatives to California's [[W:Jungle primary|jungle primary]]:
  +
  +
*[[Majority approval filter]] ([[MAF]])
  +
*[[Maximum approval top-two]] ([[MATT]])
  +
  +
== Genuine Instant Runoff ==
  +
  +
This is a proposal that [[User:RobLa]] devised in 2018:
  +
  +
# Create a playoff bracket with room for all candidates
  +
#* 1a..... using rules similar to the ones the NCAA uses for March Madness:
  +
#** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_Madness
  +
#* 1b. ....or maybe on the ones Wimbledon uses:
  +
#** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wimbledon_championship
  +
#* 1c. In short, use a single-elimination tournament:
  +
#** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-elimination_tournament
  +
# Seed the candidates in the tournament such that all members of the Smith set are guaranteed to advance to the final rounds.  I'm guessing that the Copeland score could be used:
  +
#* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copeland_method
  +
# Calculate the winner of each contest using the standard ways of inferring pairwise matchup results based on ranked/rated ballots
  +
  +
These steps may seem like a lot of theatrical extras (especially in contests where there is a single Condorcet winner) but I think this framework could provide a useful mental model for people whose eyes glaze over when try to describe some of the mathematical vulnerabilities of systems like Instant Runoff.
  +
  +
  +
== Changelog ==
  +
  +
=== 2021 ===
  +
==== 2021-02-03 ====
  +
:'' I didn't make the proposal to the [[EM-list]]. Oh well. Many other things came up in my life. -- [[User:RobLa|RobLa]] ([[User talk:RobLa|talk]]) 22:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)''
  +
  +
  +
=== 2018 ===
  +
==== 2018-12-02 ====
  +
  +
:''Below is a comment from December 2018 -- [[User:RobLa|RobLa]] ([[User talk:RobLa|talk]]) 22:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)''
  +
  +
Comment from 04:46, 2 December 2018‎ :
  +
<blockquote>
 
[Below] is a working version of a proposal I'm about to make on the [[election-methods mailing list]].
   
 
1.  Create a playoff bracket with room for all candidates, using rules similar to the ones the NCAA uses for March Madness:
 
1.  Create a playoff bracket with room for all candidates, using rules similar to the ones the NCAA uses for March Madness:
Line 19: Line 60:
 
3. Calculate the winner of each contest using the standard ways of inferring pairwise matchup results based on ranked/rated ballots
 
3. Calculate the winner of each contest using the standard ways of inferring pairwise matchup results based on ranked/rated ballots
   
These steps may seem like a lot of theatrical extras (especially in contests where there is a single Condorcet winner) but I think this framework could provide a useful mental model for people whose eyes glaze over when try to describe some of the mathematical vulnerabilities of systems like Instant Runoff.
+
These steps may seem like a lot of theatrical extras (especially in contests where there is a single Condorcet winner) but I think this framework could provide a useful mental model for people whose eyes glaze over when try to describe some of the mathematical vulnerabilities of systems like Instant Runoff.
  +
</blockquote>

Revision as of 22:33, 3 February 2021

MAF and MATT

A couple of new voting systems I worked on in late 2018 as possible alternatives to California's jungle primary:

Genuine Instant Runoff

This is a proposal that User:RobLa devised in 2018:

  1. Create a playoff bracket with room for all candidates
  2. Seed the candidates in the tournament such that all members of the Smith set are guaranteed to advance to the final rounds.  I'm guessing that the Copeland score could be used:
  3. Calculate the winner of each contest using the standard ways of inferring pairwise matchup results based on ranked/rated ballots

These steps may seem like a lot of theatrical extras (especially in contests where there is a single Condorcet winner) but I think this framework could provide a useful mental model for people whose eyes glaze over when try to describe some of the mathematical vulnerabilities of systems like Instant Runoff.


Changelog

2021

2021-02-03

I didn't make the proposal to the EM-list. Oh well. Many other things came up in my life. -- RobLa (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


2018

2018-12-02

Below is a comment from December 2018 -- RobLa (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment from 04:46, 2 December 2018‎ :

[Below] is a working version of a proposal I'm about to make on the election-methods mailing list.

1.  Create a playoff bracket with room for all candidates, using rules similar to the ones the NCAA uses for March Madness:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_Madness>

....or maybe on the ones Wimbledon uses:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wimbledon_championship>

In short, use a single-elimination tournament:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-elimination_tournament>

2.  Seed the candidates in the tournament such that all members of the Smith set are guaranteed to advance to the final rounds.  I'm guessing that the Copeland score could be used:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copeland_method>

3. Calculate the winner of each contest using the standard ways of inferring pairwise matchup results based on ranked/rated ballots

These steps may seem like a lot of theatrical extras (especially in contests where there is a single Condorcet winner) but I think this framework could provide a useful mental model for people whose eyes glaze over when try to describe some of the mathematical vulnerabilities of systems like Instant Runoff.