Baldwin's method: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
(add "Total Vote Runoff" from Wikipedia)
No edit summary
 
(7 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1:
{{Wikipedia}}
 
CandidatesUnder '''Baldwin's method''', candidates are voted for on [[Ranked voting]] as in the [[Borda count]]. Then, the points are tallied in a series of rounds. In each round, the candidate with the fewest points is eliminated, and the points are re-tallied as if that candidate were never on the ballot.
 
It was systematized by Joseph M. Baldwin<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Baldwin|first=J. M.|date=1926|title=The technique of the Nanson preferential majority system of election|url=https://archive.org/details/proceedingsroyaxxxvroyaa/page/42|journal=Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria|volume=39|pages=42–52|via=}}</ref> in 1926, who incorporated [[Condorcet method|a more efficient matrix tabulation]],<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Hogben|first=G.|date=1913|title=Preferential Voting in Single-member Constituencies, with Special Reference to the Counting of Votes|url=http://rsnz.natlib.govt.nz/volume/rsnz_46/rsnz_46_00_005780.html|journal=Transactions and Proceedings of the Royal Society of New Zealand|series=|volume=46|issue=|pages=304–308|via=}}</ref> extending it to support incomplete ballots and equal rankings. Baldwin's method has been confused with [[Nanson's method]] in some literature.<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|last=Niou|first=Emerson M. S.|date=1987|title=A Note on Nanson's Rule|journal=Public Choice|volume=54|issue=2|pages=191–193|issn=0048-5829|citeseerx=10.1.1.460.8191|doi=10.1007/BF00123006}}</ref> This method predates but is related to [[Nanson's method]]. Nanson noted Baldwin's method was already in use by the Trinity College at the University of Melbourne Dialectic Society when he invented his method.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|last=Nanson|first=E. J.|date=1882|title=Methods of election|url=https://archive.org/details/transactionsproc1719roya/page/197|journal=Transactions and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria|volume=19|pages=197–240|via=}}</ref>{{Rp|217}}
[[Baldwin's method]] has been confused with [[Nanson's method]] in some literature.<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|last=Niou|first=Emerson M. S.|date=1987|title=A Note on Nanson's Rule|journal=Public Choice|volume=54|issue=2|pages=191–193|issn=0048-5829|citeseerx=10.1.1.460.8191|doi=10.1007/BF00123006}}</ref> This method predates but is related to [[Nanson's method]]. Nanson noted [[Baldwin's method]] was already in use by the Trinity College at the University of Melbourne Dialectic Society when he invented his method.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|last=Nanson|first=E. J.|date=1882|title=Methods of election|url=https://archive.org/details/transactionsproc1719roya/page/197|journal=Transactions and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria|volume=19|pages=197–240|via=}}</ref>{{Rp|217}}
 
This system was re-inventedrechristened in 2022 under the nameas '''Total Vote Runoff''', by Nobel Memorial Prize laureate economists [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_B._Foley Edward B. Foley] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Maskin Eric Maskin], andwho proposed for use in the United Statesit as a way to fix problems within the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting instant-runoff method]. inMaskin USand jurisdictionsFoley note that useunlike itinstant-runoff, ensuringTVR ensures majority support offor the winner and electingtypically elects more broadly-acceptable candidates.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Foley|first=Edward B.|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/11/01/alaska-final-four-primary-begich-palin-peltola/|title=Alaska’s ranked-choice voting is flawed. But there’s an easy fix.|date=November 1, 2022|work=Washington Post|access-date=2022-11-09|last2=Maskin|first2=Eric S.|language=en-US|issn=0190-8286|quote=the way Alaska uses ranked-choice voting also caused the defeat of Begich, whom most Alaska voters preferred to Democrat Mary Peltola … A candidate popular only with the party’s base would be eliminated early in a Total Vote Runoff, leaving a more broadly popular Republican to compete against a Democrat.|author-link=Edward B. Foley|author-link2=Eric Maskin}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Foley|first=Edward B.|date=2023-01-18|title=Total Vote Runoff: A Majority-Maximizing Form of Ranked Choice Voting|url=https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=4328946|language=en|location=Rochester, NY}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://electionlawblog.org/?p=132792|title=“Total Vote Runoff” tweak to Ranked Choice Voting|last=Foley|first=Ned|author-link=Edward B. Foley|date=November 1, 2022|website=Election Law Blog|language=en-US|access-date=2022-11-09|quote=a small but significant adjustment to the “instant runoff” method … equivalent to a candidate’s Borda score, and eliminating sequentially the candidate with the lowest total votes}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://electionlawblog.org/?p=132963|title=An Additional Detail about “Total Vote Runoff”|last=Foley|first=Ned|author-link=Edward B. Foley|date=November 8, 2022|website=Election Law Blog|language=en-US|access-date=2022-11-09|quote=Begich and Peltola each get half a vote by being tied for second place on this ballot}}</ref>
 
== Satisfied and failed criteria ==
 
[[Baldwin's method]] satisfies the [[Condorcet criterion]].<ref name=":1" /> becauseBecause Borda always gives any existing Condorcet winner more than the average Borda points, the Condorcet winner will never be eliminated. Furthermore it satisfies the [[majority criterion]], the [[mutual majority criterion]], the [[Condorcet loser criterion]] and the [[Smith set|Smith criterion]].
 
[[Baldwin's method]] does not satisfy the [[independence of irrelevant alternatives]] criterion, the [[monotonicity criterion]], the [[participation criterion]], the [[consistency criterion]] and the [[independence of clones criterion]]. [[Baldwin's method]] also violates [[reversal symmetry]] (unlike [[Nanson's method]]).<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.mail-archive.com/election-methods@lists.electorama.com/msg00625.html|title=Re: [Election-Methods] Borda-elimination, a Condorcet method for public elections?|website=www.mail-archive.com|access-date=2019-06-19}}</ref>
 
[[Baldwin's method]] can be run in polynomial time to obtain a single winner, however,but at each stage, there mightmay be several candidates with the lowest Borda score. In fact, it is NP-complete to decide whether a given candidate is a potential Baldwin winner, i.e., whether there exists an elimination sequence that leaves a given candidate uneliminated.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Mattei|first=Nicholas|last2=Narodytska|first2=Nina|last3=Walsh|first3=Toby|date=2014-01-01|title=How Hard is It to Control an Election by Breaking Ties?|journal=Proceedings of the Twenty-first European Conference on Artificial Intelligence|volume=263|issue=ECAI 2014|series=ECAI'14|location=Amsterdam, The Netherlands, The Netherlands|publisher=IOS Press|pages=1067–1068|doi=10.3233/978-1-61499-419-0-1067|isbn=9781614994183}}</ref>. This implies that this method is computationally more difficult to compute than Borda's method.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Davies|first=Jessica|last2=Katsirelos|first2=George|last3=Narodytska|first3=Nina|last4=Walsh|first4=Toby|last5=Xia|first5=Lirong|date=2014-12-01|title=Complexity of and algorithms for the manipulation of Borda, Nanson's and Baldwin's voting rules|journal=Artificial Intelligence|volume=217|pages=20–42|doi=10.1016/j.artint.2014.07.005|issn=0004-3702}}</ref>
 
In practice, the computational bottleneck can be resolved easily enough by adopting some tiebreaking method (like eliminating all tied candidates simultaneously). However, the high frequency of near-ties leaves these methods open to lawsuits (similarly to [[Instant-runoff voting|plurality-with-elimination]]) and can lead to chaotic results.
==Cardinal Variant==
 
==Cardinal Variantvariant==
A [[Cardinal Voting]] variant of this system can be made by simply taking the scores initially rather than taking ranks and converting them with [[Borda count]]. In this context the motivation for the normalization at each round is derived by considering an affine transformation. When the lowest scored candidate is removed such a rescaling would then rescale so that each voter has some candidate at the MAX and some at the MIN score. This will always maximize effective vote power which is the issue attempted to be equalized by this method.
 
Using [[Score voting|scores]] instead of [[Borda count|Borda counts]] gives the '''Cardinal Baldwin''' method; the lowest-scored candidate is eliminated and the ballots are rescaled (normalized) in each round. When the lowest scored candidate is removed such a rescaling would then rescale so that each voter has some candidate at the MAX and some at the MIN score. This maximizes each voter's effective power at each step; eliminating minor candidates in this way prevents them from substantially affecting the results.
More explicitly. Let MAX and MIN be the extreme available grades. Let <math>u_c</math> be a voters score for candidate c, let <math>u_{min}</math> and <math>u_{max}</math> be their score for her worst and best candidates in the considered election round. The rescaled utility is:
 
Assuming the scores are all scaled to fall in the range [0, 1], ballots are rescaled as follows:
<math>\begin{equation}
v_c(u_c) = MIN + (MAX– MIN) \frac{(u_c – u_{min})}{(u_{max} – u_{min})}
\end{equation}</math>
 
 
 
For example, in a [0, 10] system the translation is
 
<math>\begin{equation}
v_c(u_c) = 10 \frac{(u_c – u_{min})}{(u_{max} – u_{min})}
\end{equation}</math>
 
It would transform [1, 3, 5] to [0, 5, 10].
 
<math>v_c(u_c) = MIN + (MAX– MIN) \frac{(u_c - u_{\min})}{(u_{\max} - u_{\min})}</math>
 
ItFor example, we would transform [.1, .3, .5] to [0, .5, 101.0].
===Related systems===
 
[[STAR voting]] is a simplified version of this where instead of eliminating each candidate one by one all but the last two candidates are removed at once. This alteration recovers the [[monotonicity criterion]].
 
[[Distributed Voting]] is a [[Cumulativecumulative voting]] variant.
 
==Notes==
Line 54 ⟶ 43:
 
Borda scores are A 185, B 205, C 210. A beats B beats C beats A, so there is no Condorcet winner, and so A, the Borda loser, is eliminated. Since B beats C, B wins. Note that this is a different result than [[Black's method]], which would elect C. They are both related to [[Nanson's method]].
 
== Example ==
{{Tenn voting example}}This gives the following points table:
{| class="wikitable" style="border:none"
! {{diagonal split header|Candidate|Voters}}
!Memphis
!Nashville
!Knoxville
!Chattanooga
| rowspan="5" style="border: none; background: white;" |
!Score
|-
!Memphis
|42×3=126
|0
|0
|0
|126
|-
!Nashville
|42×2 = 84
|26×3 = 78
|17×1 = 17
|15×1 = 15
|194
|-
!Knoxville
|0
|26×1 = 26
|17×3 = 51
|15×2 = 30
|107
|-
!Chattanooga
|42×1 = 42
|26×2 = 52
|17×2 = 34
|15×3 = 45
|173
|}
Knoxville has the least amount of points, so it is eliminated.
 
We now have this table:
{| class="wikitable" style="border:none"
! {{diagonal split header|Candidate|Voters}}
!Memphis
!Nashville
!Knoxville
!Chattanooga
| rowspan="4" style="border: none; background: white;" |
!Score
|-
!Memphis
|42×2 = 84
|0
|0
|0
|84
|-
!Nashville
|42×1 = 42
|26×2 = 52
|17×1 = 17
|15×1 = 15
|126
|-
!Chattanooga
|0
|26×1 = 26
|17×2 = 34
|15×2 = 30
|90
|}
Now Memphis is eliminated.
 
This leaves us with Nashville and Chattanooga. Nashville has 42+26 points, giving it 68 points, while Chattanooga has 17+15 points giving it 32. This makes Nashville the winner.
 
== See also ==