Correlated Instant Borda Runoff: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Revision as of 22:52, 23 December 2005 view source imported>DanBishop No edit summary		Latest revision as of 19:03, 12 April 2020 view source Psephomancy (talk \| contribs) Bureaucrats, Administrators 1,889 edits Rename category
(3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Correlated Instant Borda Runoff (CIBR) is a [[preferential voting\|preferential]] [[voting system]] for single-winner elections, devised by Ken Kuhlman in May 2005 in order to reduce [[Borda]]'s susceptability to [[clones]]. == Procedure == Candidates are scored according to the [[Borda count]]. The Borda loser of the [[candidate correlation\|most-correlated]] pair of candidates is eliminated. The process is repeated until only one candidate remains. == Example == {{Tenn_voting_example}} The [[Borda]] scores for the four candidates are: * Nashville: 194 * Chattanooga: 173 * Memphis: 126 * Knoxville: 107 If "correlation" is defined as [[third-order correlation]], then the most-correlated pair is Chattanooga and Knoxville. Knoxville has fewer Borda points and so is eliminated. After this elimination, the Borda scores for the remaining candidates are: * Nashville: 126 * Chattanooga: 90 * Memphis: 84 and the correlations are: * Nashville & Chattanooga: 100% * Nashville & Memphis: 74% * Chattanoogs & Memphis: 26% The new most-correlated pair is Nashville and Chattanooga. Chattanooga is the Borda loser of this pair and is eliminated. The Borda scores of the remaining pair of candidates are: * Nashville: 58 * Memphis: 42 Memphis is eliminated, and Nashville wins. == Criteria Compliance == CIBR passes: * [[summability criterion\|third-order summability]] It fails: * [[Condorcet criterion]] [[Category:Single-winner voting methods]][[Category:Ranked voting methods]]