Iterated Bucklin: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
m (Added reference to Kevin Venzke's calculator.) |
m (Specified method's link to ranked Approval) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Visual edit |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Iterated Bucklin (alternatively Bucklin-IRV, or BIRV) is a variant of [[Bucklin voting]] whereby the number of top preferences an individual ballot reveals at any point is a function of the rank in which the ballot places the winner of the count so far. This modifies the standard [[Bucklin voting]] procedure by which all ballots reveal the same, progressively increasing number of top preferences until a quota of support is filled by at least one candidate. |
Iterated Bucklin (alternatively Bucklin-IRV, or BIRV) is a ranked [[Approval voting|Approval]] count, a variant of [[Bucklin voting]] whereby the number of top preferences an individual ballot reveals at any point is a function of the rank in which the ballot places the winner of the count so far. This modifies the standard [[Bucklin voting]] procedure by which all ballots reveal the same, progressively increasing number of top preferences until a quota of support is filled by at least one candidate. |
||
Iterated Bucklin was [http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com//2020-December/002649.html proposed] by Etjon Basha in December 2020 as an attempt to produce a count that exhibits few practical violations of voting criteria (elicits the greatest degree of sincerity for voters) and the least degree of count complexity, at the cost of not formally meeting many criteria. Iterated Bucklin [http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com//2020-December/002649.html violates] [[Condorcet criterion|Condorcet]], [[Later no-harm criterion|Later-No-Harm]], [http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com//2020-December/002650.html Later-No-Help] and is not precinct summable. A preliminary simulation of the count’s propensity to violate various criteria was conducted by Kevin Venzke.<ref>[http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com//2020-December/002650.html "Strategic Bucklin variant?"] - ''Kevin Venzke'' - Dec 16 22:57:59 PST 2020</ref> |
Iterated Bucklin was [http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com//2020-December/002649.html proposed] by Etjon Basha in December 2020 as an attempt to produce a count that exhibits few practical violations of voting criteria (elicits the greatest degree of sincerity for voters) and the least degree of count complexity, at the cost of not formally meeting many criteria. Iterated Bucklin [http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com//2020-December/002649.html violates] [[Condorcet criterion|Condorcet]], [[Later no-harm criterion|Later-No-Harm]], [http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com//2020-December/002650.html Later-No-Help] and is not precinct summable. A preliminary simulation of the count’s propensity to violate various criteria was conducted by Kevin Venzke.<ref>[http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com//2020-December/002650.html "Strategic Bucklin variant?"] - ''Kevin Venzke'' - Dec 16 22:57:59 PST 2020</ref> |
||