4,193
edits
Effects of different voting systems under similar circumstances: Difference between revisions
Effects of different voting systems under similar circumstances (view source)
Revision as of 03:40, 13 September 2023
, 8 months agoABIF example (see #ABIF)
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
(ABIF example (see #ABIF)) |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
This article describes what is sometimes referred to as the "'''Tennessee example'''". It describes an example election using geographical proximity to create hypothetical preferences of a group of voters, and then compares the results of such preferences with ten different [[voting systems]]. It does not, however, address any of the voting systems that are based on [[proportional representation]].
'''Note that the examples given below may not reflect real-world elections, because, among other things, all of the ballots have only four unique sets of preferences.'''
Line 489:
In the example election, the winner is Nashville. This would be true for any [[Condorcet method]]. Using the [[plurality election system]] system and some other systems, Memphis would have won the election by having the most people, even though Nashville won every simulated pairwise election outright. Using [[instant-runoff voting]] in this example would have resulted in Knoxville winning, even though more people preferred Nashville over Knoxville.
==
[[Image:Approval ballot.svg|thumb|right|Approval ballot]]
These two systems, Approval and Range voting, allow voters to evaluate each candidate independently and assign point scores to each candidate. Approval is a limited range system with zero or one points for each candidate.
Line 627:
So Knoxville wins if there is one winner but loses if there are two or three winners.
==Machine-readable results==
===ABIF===
[[ABIF]]-compatible software can count the results of this election.<ref>https://gist.github.com/robla/b967903a166f4d11e8ee02c0f911f1ca</ref>
<syntaxhighlight>
# Hypothetical example of selecting capitol of Tennessee
# See https://electowiki.org/wiki/Tennessee_example for
# illustrations
=Memph:[Memphis, TN]
=Nash:[Nashville, TN]
=Chat:[Chattanooga, TN]
=Knox:[Knoxville, TN]
# -------------------------
# Ratings are 400 miles minus crow-flying mileage to city
42:Memph/400>Nash/200>Chat/133>Knox/45
26:Nash/400>Chat/290>Knox/240>Memph/200
15:Chat/400>Knox/296>Nash/290>Memph/133
17:Knox/400>Chat/296>Nash/240>Memph/45
</syntaxhighlight>
The example above assumes the following formula to calculate
<syntaxhighlight>
rating = 400 - <miles_to_city>
</syntaxhighlight>
So, for example, it is approximately 355 miles between Knoxville and Memphis (as the crow flies). Knoxville voters would presumably rate at 45 (400 miles minus the distance). Memphis voters would presumably rate Knoxville the same way.
== References ==
<references/>
[[Category:Elections]]
[[Category:Tennessee]]
{{fromwikipedia|Draft:Effects of different voting systems under similar circumstances}}
| |||