Majority Acceptable Score voting: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
imported>Homunq No edit summary |
imported>Homunq (tennessee example) |
||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
Blank votes are counted as ratings of 1 or 0 in proportion to the fraction of all voters who gave the candidate a 2. For example, a candidate could not win with more than 71% blank votes, because even if the other 29% are all 2-ratings, that would leave 71%*71%=50.41% 0-votes, enough to eliminate. |
Blank votes are counted as ratings of 1 or 0 in proportion to the fraction of all voters who gave the candidate a 2. For example, a candidate could not win with more than 71% blank votes, because even if the other 29% are all 2-ratings, that would leave 71%*71%=50.41% 0-votes, enough to eliminate. |
||
Here's a google spreadsheet to calculate results: [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1siFG6XmOZokygY-86EhAKgv8YwzKtTET6AJopyXRqu0/edit#gid=0]. On page 2, it has some hypothetical results for the Egypt 2012 election, showing that this system could have elected a reformer over Morsi, despite vote-splitting among the various reformers. IRV could have elected Morsi. |
Here's a google spreadsheet to calculate results: [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1siFG6XmOZokygY-86EhAKgv8YwzKtTET6AJopyXRqu0/edit#gid=0]. On page 1, it has some examples of how different combinations of ratings would come out, suggesting that it could work well in both [[chicken dilemma]] and [[center squeeze]] scenarios. On page 2, it has some hypothetical results for the Egypt 2012 election, showing that this system could have elected a reformer over Morsi, despite vote-splitting among the various reformers. IRV could have elected Morsi. |
||
== An example == |
|||
{{Tenn_voting_example}} |
|||
Assume half of voters in each city rate one city 2, one city 1, and two cities 0; and half rate one 2, leave two blank, and one 0. |
|||
<div class="floatright"> |
|||
{| border=1 |
|||
!City |
|||
!2's |
|||
!explicit 1's |
|||
!explicit 0's |
|||
!blanks |
|||
!total 0's |
|||
!score |
|||
|- |
|||
!bgcolor="#fff"|Memphis |
|||
|bgcolor="#fff"|42 |
|||
|bgcolor="#fff"|0 |
|||
|bgcolor="#fcc"|58 |
|||
|bgcolor="#fff"|0 |
|||
|bgcolor="#fcc"|58 |
|||
|bgcolor="#efe"|(84) |
|||
|- |
|||
!bgcolor="#fff"|Nashville |
|||
|bgcolor="#fff"|26 |
|||
|bgcolor="#fff"|21 |
|||
|bgcolor="#fff"|16 |
|||
|bgcolor="#cfc"|37 |
|||
|bgcolor="#fff"|43 |
|||
|bgcolor="#cfc"|83 |
|||
|- |
|||
!bgcolor="#fff"|Chatanooga |
|||
|bgcolor="#fff"|15 |
|||
|bgcolor="#fff"|22 |
|||
|bgcolor="#fff"|21 |
|||
|bgcolor="#fff"|42 |
|||
|bgcolor="#fcc"|57 |
|||
|bgcolor="#fff"|(59) |
|||
|- |
|||
!bgcolor="#fff"|Knoxville |
|||
|bgcolor="#fff"|17 |
|||
|bgcolor="#fff"|8 |
|||
|bgcolor="#fcc"|55 |
|||
|bgcolor="#fff"|20 |
|||
|bgcolor="#fcc"|72 |
|||
|bgcolor="#fff"|(45) |
|||
|} |
|||
</div> |
|||
Only Chatanooga is rated above 0 by a majority, so Chatanooga (the [[Condorcet winner]]) wins, even though Memphis has a slightly higher score. |
|||
[[Category:Graded Bucklin systems]] |
[[Category:Graded Bucklin systems]] |