Method evaluation poll 2005: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Method evaluation poll 2005 (view source)

Revision as of 06:02, 22 April 2020

765 bytes added , 4 years ago

Added introduction to article, and highlighted that this poll is no longer active

VisualWikitext

RobLa

Bureaucrats, Confirmed users, Administrators

4,193

edits

Revision as of 05:11, 28 October 2005 (view source) 63.164.145.198 (talk) (→‎ranking input with approval cutoff) ← Older edit		Latest revision as of 06:02, 22 April 2020 (view source) RobLa (talk \| contribs) (Added introduction to article, and highlighted that this poll is no longer active) Tag: Visual edit
(29 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown)
Line 1: This was a "method evaluation poll" that was conducted in starting in 2005. The participants were largely contributors to the [[election-methods mailing list]], and responses largely faded out by 2006. This page remained unedited for many years after 2006. Please rate the following single-winner methods on a scale from 0 to 10, on '''functional merit alone'''. That is, leaving the issue of public salability aside, how well will the method perform in a large, contentious electorate? Decimal ratings are allowed.▼ == The 2005 poll == ▲Respondents were given the following instructions<blockquote>Please rate the following single-winner methods on a scale from 0 to 10, on '''functional merit alone'''. That is, leaving the issue of public salability aside, how well will the method perform in a large, contentious electorate? Decimal ratings are allowed. The answers you give on your first pass through the survey need not be final. Please feel free to change/update your answers as many times as you like. You may leave a question mark next to your score for a given method if you are particularly uncertain about that score, and you may also substitute a question mark for the number if you feel unable to evalute the method. Feel free to add more methods to the poll, especially interesting ones! This goes without saying, but please don't change other people's ratings! Try to keep the columns tidy so that it's clear whose scores are whose. The format of this poll is based on that of the [[Essential Questions\|essential questions]] poll. Please identify yourself by your initials in the body of the poll, and in the participants section at the top of the poll. This poll will be ongoing; that is, it has no closing date. Also, there is no official tally method, and no official winner will be declared.</blockquote>The results were collected in late 2005. == the participants == Line 20 ⟶ 23: JG CB KV DK MO RL JF [[Plurality]] 2 20 2 2 0 0 0 [[Runoff voting\|Two round runoff]] 3 53 3 3 0 2 2 [[Approval voting\|Approval]] 6 64 8 5 9 5 9 [[Random Ballot\|Random Ballot]] 0 10 1 1 0 0 2 === ranking input === Line 34 ⟶ 37: JG CB KV DK MO RL JF [[Borda count]] 1 30 0 0 0 0 4 [[IRV]] without equal rankings 4 7 3 3 0 4 2 Line 42 ⟶ 45: 6 6 3 ? 0 ? 2 [[Bucklin voting\|Bucklin]] without equal rankings 3? 6. 5 6 0 ? 6 [[ER-Bucklin\|ER-Bucklin(whole)]] 5.5? 6.5 7 2 ? 4 [[ER-Bucklin\|ER-Bucklin(fractional)]] ? 5? 5 ? 5 [[Descending Acquiescing Coalitions]] (~~DSC~~DAC) 3? 4 [[Descending Solid Coalitions]] 2? 2 ==== nearly Condorcet-efficient ==== Line 56 ⟶ 59: JG CB KV DK MO RL JF [[MMPO\|minmax(pairwise opposition)]] 5 4 3? 4 ? 0 ? 4 [[CDTT\|CDTT,IRV]] 7 9 5? 5 ? ? ? 4 [[CDTT\|CDTT,minmax(pairwise opposition)]] ? 5 3? 6 ? ? ? 5 [[Improved Condorcet Approval]] ([[ICA]]), a.k.a. [[Condorcet//Approval]] with [[FBC]] tweak) 6? 6? 9 ? ? ? 5 [[Majority Defeat Disqualification Approval]] ([[MDDA]]) 6? 7. 5? 9 8 10 10 ? 6 [[MDD,ER-Bucklin(whole)]] 8? ==== Condorcet-efficient ==== Line 74 ⟶ 79: 2 4 3 3 0 6 ? [[river]](wv) 7 7 8 7 8 ? 9 [[~~beatpath~~Schulze method\|Schulze]](WV) 7 7 8 7 8 9 8 [[~~beatpath~~Schulze method\|Schulze]](margins) 2 4 3 3 0 5 ? [[sequential dropping]](WV) Line 92 ⟶ 97: 5.5? ? 3 ? 0 ? 5 [[Raynaud]] 6? 3? 3 3 0 ? 6 [[Smith,IRV]] or [[Schwartz,IRV]] 8 === ranking input with approval cutoff === Line 98 ⟶ 105: JG CB KV DK MO RL JF [[Definite Majority Choice\|definite majority choice]] a.k.a. [[Ranked Approval Voting\|ranked approval voting]] 6.5 89.5 6 3 1 ? 5 [[CWP\|approval weighted pairwise]] (e.g. with ranked pairs base) 9 8? 7 3 1 ? 4 [[approval margins]] 5.5 98.5 ? 3 1 ? ? [[Imagine Democratic Fair Choice\|democratic fair choice (DFC)]] ? 5? 3 3 1 ? 4 Schwartz//Approval or Smith//Approval (See [[Condorcet//Approval]]) 5? 4 1 10 [[Condorcet//Approval]] 4? 4 1 10 [[Definite Majority,IRV]] 8 === rating input === JG CB KV DK MO RL [[range voting]] (ratings summation) 5.5 5 2 89.751 [[Median Ratings\|median ratings]] 3 4 2 2 ranked pairs([[cardinal pairwise]]) 9.5 8? 5 2 45 ~~beatpath~~[[Schulze method\|Schulze]]([[cardinal pairwise]]) 9.5 8? 5 2 45 [[Automated DMC]] 10 === other === JG CB DK MO [[candidate withdrawal option\|CWO]]-ER-IRV(whole) 7 2? 1 4 [[candidate withdrawal option\|CWO]]-ER-IRV(fractional) 8 3? 1 43 [[candidate withdrawal option\|CWO]]-ranked pairs(WV) 8 1 5 [[candidate withdrawal option\|CWO]]-ranked ballot plurality 6 1? 1 1 [[MMPO\|minmax(pairwise opposition)]] with [[AERLO]] and [[ATLO]] 4 3? ? 0 [[MMPO]] with AERLO, ATLO, & [[Power Truncation]] ? 0?? 0 [[MMPO]] with (only) [[Power Truncation]] ? 0?? 10 [[~~beatpath~~Schulze method\|Schulze]](WV) with AERLO and ATLO 8 3? ? 48.5 [[~~beatpath~~Schulze method\|Schulze]](WV) with [[strong/weak preference option]] 7.5 5? ? 4 ? [[random jury]] method ? 0 1 1 == See also == Line 150 ⟶ 161: [[Essential Questions]] poll [[Method support poll]] *[[Method evaluation poll 2008]] [[Category:Advocacy]]