Agenda: Difference between revisions

Line 1:

An agenda is an ordering of candidates, or more generally, options/alternatives, that are to be voted on. Generally, the first two candidates in the agenda are put in a [[head-to-head matchup]] where the majority-opposed of the two is eliminated, and this is repeated, until only one option remains, which wins. This is a [[Smith-efficient]] process which can be modelled by several [[Condorcet methods]], such as [[BTR-IRV]]; see [[:Category:Sequential comparison Condorcet methods|Category:Sequential comparison Condorcet methods]].

In an [[election method|election-method]] context, an '''agenda''' is an ordering of candidates, or more generally, options/alternatives, that are to be voted on. Generally, the first two candidates in the agenda are put in a [[head-to-head matchup]] where the majority-opposed of the two is eliminated, and this is repeated, until only one option remains, which wins.

Using sequential head-to-head matchups is a [[Smith-efficient]] process which can be modelled by several [[Condorcet methods]], such as the

⚫

[[Asset voting]] can be thought of as similar to an agenda except that because it is a fluid negotiation process, ~~head~~-to-head matchups can occur between practically any pair of candidates, and can occur various times. Both are similar in that they are commonly used in real-world settings (or variants of them) for group decision-making and legislative votes.

"[[bottom-two-runoff-instant-runoff-voting method]]" (also known as the "BTR-IRV method"). Other sequential comparison methods can be found under [[:Category:Sequential comparison Condorcet methods|Category:Sequential comparison Condorcet methods]].

⚫

[[Asset voting]] can be thought of as similar to an agenda except that because it is a fluid negotiation process. Head-to-head matchups can occur between practically any pair of candidates, and can occur various times. Both are similar in that they are commonly used in real-world settings (or variants of them) for group decision-making and legislative votes.

Agendas come under criticism because they allow the agenda-setter (the person assigning the order) to potentially have great control over who wins when there are multiple candidates in the [[Smith set]]. The [[Banks set]] and [[uncovered set]] are sets that examine and model the manner and effect of strategic voting with agendas.