Maximum Constrained Approval Bucklin: Difference between revisions
Maximum Constrained Approval Bucklin (view source)
Revision as of 22:51, 26 January 2020
, 4 years agoAdd author name to references
(Add example where Hylland vote management works) |
m (Add author name to references) |
||
Line 7:
Determining which voters to eliminate to maximize the support of a candidate subject to earlier constraints is relatively simple to do by linear programming, but hard to do by hand; FAB can't be counted entirely by hand.
What ended up as FAB was initially proposed in 2017<ref>{{cite web|url=http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2017-January/001276.html|title=Bucklin multiwinner method|website=Election-methods mailing list archives|date=2017-01-06|last=Munsterhjelm|first=K.}}</ref> and simplified in later that year<ref>{{cite web|url=http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2017-September/001584.html|title=A simpler vote management-resistant Bucklin LP|website=Election-methods mailing list archives|date=2017-09-15|last=Munsterhjelm|first=K.}}</ref>. The method detailed here has been further modified from the EM posts to resist Woodall [[free riding]].
<<TBD, below this point, particularly the handling of epsilons>>
Line 146:
=== Monotonicity ===
Like BTV, FAB fails the monotonicity criterion due to a lookahead problem<ref>{{cite web|url=http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2018-February/001682.html|title=Path dependence monotonicity failure in BTV|website=Election-methods mailing list archives|date=2018-02-18|last=Munsterhjelm|first=K.}}</ref>. However, FAB passes the two criteria above as long as the candidate to elect in a round is chosen (by some method) from the set of candidates with above Droop quota support for that round. Thus, it is possible that a variant that uses a yet unknown lookahead criterion instead of electing the candidate with the greatest support, could pass monotonicity.
== References ==
| |||