Method evaluation poll 2005: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
imported>James Green-Armytage |
imported>James Green-Armytage m (→binary input) |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
[[runoff|Two round runoff]] |
[[runoff|Two round runoff]] |
||
3 ? |
3 ? |
||
[[Approval]] |
[[Approval voting|Approval]] |
||
5 ? |
5 ? |
||
Revision as of 12:58, 14 June 2005
Particular methods
Please rate the following methods on a scale from 0 to 10, on merit alone. (That is, leaving the issue of public salability aside, how well will the method perform in a large, contentious electorate?)
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.
binary input
JG ?? ?? ?? ?? Plurality 2 ? Two round runoff 3 ? Approval 5 ?
ranking input
not Condorcet-efficient
JG ?? ?? ?? ?? Borda count 1 ? IRV without equal rankings 4 ? ER-IRV(whole) 6 ? ER-IRV(fractional) 6 ? Bucklin 3 ?
nearly Condorcet-efficient
JG ?? ?? ?? ?? minmax(pairwise opposition) 3 ? CDTT,IRV 7 ?
Condorcet-efficient
JG ?? ?? ?? ?? ranked pairs(WV) 8 ? ranked pairs(margins) 2 ? beatpath(WV) 8 ? beatpath(margins) 2 ? sequential dropping(WV) 7 ? minmax(WV) 3 ? minmax(margins) 1 ? Smith//minmax(WV) 7 ? Smith//minmax(margins) 2 ? Nanson 4 ? Raynaud 5 ?
ranking input with approval cutoff
JG ?? ?? ?? ?? definite majority choice 7 ? approval weighted pairwise 9 ? approval margins 4 ?
rating input
JG ?? ?? ?? ?? range voting (ratings summation) 6 ? median rating 3 ? ranked pairs(cardinal pairwise) 10 ? beatpath(cardinal pairwise) 10 ?
other
JG ?? ?? ?? ?? CWO-ER-IRV(whole) 7 ? CWO-ER-IRV(fractional) 7 ? CWO-ranked pairs(WV) 9 ? CWO-ranked ballot plurality 4 ? minmax(pairwise opposition) with AERLO and ATLO ? ? beatpath(WV) with AERLO and ATLO 8 ? beatpath(WV) with strong/weak preference option 8