Distributed Score Voting: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(9 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1:
Distributed Score Voting (DSV) is a [[Single Member system|Single-Winner]] and [[Multi-Member System|Multi-Winner]] [[Cardinal voting systems| Cardinal voting system]].
 
In the [[Single Member system|Single-Winner]] part, it's similar to [[Smith//Score]]. In the [[Multi-Member System|Multi-Winner]] part, [[Distributed Multi-Voting]], the more preferred the winning candidate is in a vote, the more the weight of that vote is decreased in the choice of the next winner.
 
[[Category:Multi-winner voting methods]]
Line 11 ⟶ 13:
 
All candidates in the vote have 0 points by default.
[[File:DSV procedure v4.jpg|alt=|thumb|DSV counting]]
 
===Counting the votes===
Line 123 ⟶ 125:
! rowspan=1 | [[Smith criterion|Smith]]
! rowspan=1 | [[Pareto criterion|Pareto]]
! rowspan=1 | IIA*
! rowspan=1 | [[Independence of irrelevant alternatives|IIA]]
! rowspan=1 | [[w:Independence of clones criterion|Clone proof]]
Line 144 ⟶ 147:
! style="background: #98ff98; font-weight: inherit;" | Yes
! style="background: #98ff98; font-weight: inherit;" | Yes
! style="background: #fd8787; font-weight: inherit;" | No
! style="background: #98ff98; font-weight: inherit;" | Yes
! style="background: #98ff98; font-weight: inherit;" | Yes
Line 153 ⟶ 157:
|}
 
<b>IIA*</b>: X is a set containing all the preferred candidates over B. If I add C a less appreciated candidate (in head-to-head) than the candidates in X, then all candidates in X continue to be preferred over B.
IIA: when candidates X and Y aren't part of the Smith set, they are excluded without being evaluated, therefore it's not possible to know which are the group's preference between X and Y. The group's preference between X and Y are evaluated only when they are both in the Smith set and in this case it can be said that adding an irrelevant candidate doesn't change the group's preference between X and Y .
 
This method also passes [[ISDA]].
All the criteria not met are linked to the fact that, through tactical votes, it's possible add / remove a candidate from the Smith set.
 
All the criteria not met are linked to the fact that, through tactical votes, it's possible add / remove a candidate from the [[Smith set]].
- add one more candidate into the Smith set isn't a big problem because that additional candidate must then beat all the other candidates in point 4 of the procedure (and if he manages to beat them all it makes sense that he wins).
 
- removingadd aone more candidate frominto the [[Smith set]] isisn't onlya possiblebig whenproblem because that additional candidate losemust then beat all the head-to-head with theother candidates contained in thepoint Smith4 set.of Thisthe actuallyprocedure becomes(and aif problemhe onlymanages ifto thebeat excludedthem candidateall isit themakes onesense who really shouldthat havehe wonwins).
 
- removing a candidate from the [[Smith set]] is only possible when that candidate lose all the head-to-head with the candidates contained in the [[Smith set]]. This actually becomes a problem only if the excluded candidate is the one who really should have won.
Below is an example in which, through tactical votes, it's possible to bring out a candidate, who should have won, from the Smith set (making him lose).
 
Below is an example in which, through tactical votes, it's possible to bring out a candidate, who should have won, from the [[Smith set]] (making him lose).
 
===Tactical votes===
Line 176 ⟶ 182:
* the new winner is actually a better candidate than the previous one (the new winner in the example could also be C).
* the voter has a fairly precise knowledge of the likely ballots result, without which this tactical vote would turn against him.
 
[[Category:Smith-efficient Condorcet methods]]