Algorithmic Asset Voting

Revision as of 01:12, 17 December 2019 by BetterVotingAdvocacy (talk | contribs) (Described some of the assumptions behind Algorithmic Asset.)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Asset Voting can, depending on what assumptions are made, be turned into a Smith-efficient Condorcet algorithm in the single-winner case, and a Condorcet PR method in the multiwinner case (akin to CPO-STV and Schulze STV). Its variants, Sequential Asset Voting and Bloc Asset Voting, can also be algorithmized.

Some of the assumptions are:

- Voters submit ranked or rated ballots. - The negotiators strictly follow the preferences of those ballots and try to maximize their satisfaction with the outcome i.e. if a negotiator is asked to negotiate on behalf of a voter whose ballot was A>B>C, and the negotiations are at such a stage that the negotiator can use their assets to decide which of A, B, or C will win, then the negotiator must help elect A. - The candidates with the most votes at the end of the negotiations are sequentially elected until all seats are filled. - The negotiators have as much time as necessary to reach a final outcome or set of outcomes. - The negotiators move one negotiating step at a time (i.e. if some negotiators agree to support a candidate, they must first all give their votes to that candidate before any further negotiating actions occur)

Some optional assumptions are:

- When a negotiator is indifferent between certain outcomes (i.e. because their voters equally ranked those outcomes), they use their assets to help pick the socially best of those outcomes. - In the multiwinner case, when a voter submits a rated ballot, and their negotiator can choose between electing, say, the voter's first choice, or both of their second and third choices, the negotiator somehow uses the rated information to decide which outcome is preferable (i.e. they might add up the utilities for the voter in either outcome and pursue the higher-utility outcome.) - A resolution method is applied when there are multiple outcomes in the Smith Set, and the candidates' preferences can change in order to change the Smith Set in favor of maximizing their voters' satisfaction (though this might break the algorithm or make it fail to be Condorcet-efficient in certain scenarios). As a further possibility, the candidates might also be allowed to try to induce Condorcet cycles or otherwise grow the Smith Set in ways that allow them to then resolve the election in favor of their voters' satisfaction (though this also might break the algorithm).