Method support poll: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Method support poll (view source)

Revision as of 05:30, 2 February 2019

2,259 bytes added , 5 years ago

no edit summary

VisualWikitext

Psephomancy

Bureaucrats, Administrators

1,889

edits

Revision as of 00:10, 10 September 2005 (view source) 169.231.18.188 (talk) (→‎Single winner election methods) ← Older edit		Latest revision as of 05:30, 2 February 2019 (view source) Psephomancy (talk \| contribs) No edit summary Tag: Visual edit
(17 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)
Line 1: Method support poll. Anyone with an interest in voting methods is welcome to participate. Do not alter the entries of any other participant. In this context, "supporting" a method means that you would support an effort to adopt this method in the place of a method that you don't "support". If you oppose a method, that means that you might attempt to prevent the adoption of that method, even as a replacement for a method not on your "support" list. There is no need to list ''every'' method that you oppose; just those that you think are worth mentioning, i.e. at least somewhat controversial. Feel free to rank your supported methods in order of preference, or supply some other kind of comparison between them. Feel free also to modify your answers at any time; there is no closing date for the poll. Line 11: '''James Green-Armytage''' '''Support:''' [[cardinal pairwise]] with [[beatpath]], [[ranked pairs]], [[river]], or [[sequential dropping\|Smith sequential dropping]], [[CWP\|AWP]], [[Candidate withdrawal option\|CWO-IRV]], [[ER-IRV\|ER-IRV(whole)]], [[Approval voting]], [[ER-IRV\|ER-IRV(fractional)]], [[IRV]] '''Close to supporting:''' [[Definite ~~majority~~Majority ~~choice~~Choice\|DMC]]/[[Ranked ~~approval~~Approval ~~voting~~Voting\|RAV]], [[Smith//IRV]], [[CDTT\|CDTT, IRV]], [[Smith//Minimax\|Smith//minimax]] '''Oppose:''' [[Borda count]] '''Close to opposing:''' [[Minimax\|minmax]], [[MMPO]], [[Bucklin voting\|Bucklin]], [[Descending Acquiescing Coalitions]] '''Kevin Venzke''' ''In general I prefer methods without [[favorite betrayal]] incentive. I '' ''insist on [[Minimal Defense criterion\|minimal defense]] or something similar.'' '''Support:''' [[ICA]], [[Approval voting]] '''Close to supporting:''' [[Schulze method\|Schulze]], Tideman, or River (using winning votes or possibly [[cardinal pairwise\|AWP]]), [[ER-Bucklin]](whole), [[MAMPO]], [[MDDA]] '''Support for legislatures only:''' [[CDTT]]-[[Later-no-harm criterion\|Later-no-harm]] combination methods '''Oppose:''' [[plurality voting\|plurality]], [[IRV]], [[ER-IRV]], margins, [[Borda count\|Borda]], [[DSC]], rating ballots '''Juho Laatu''' Line 47: Regional winner gets all votes of that region [[Borda count\|Borda]] and many other ("more heuristic") methods '''David Gamble''' '''Support:''' [[IRV]] '''Close to supporting:'''[[Condorcet Criterion\|Condorcet]]- any completion method, [[top-two runoff]]. '''An improvement on [[Plurality]]:''' [[Approval voting]], [[Bucklin voting\|Bucklin]], [[Range voting]]. '''Close to opposing:''' [[Borda count\|Borda]]. '''Oppose:''' [[Plurality]], the use of single seat methods in multi-member districts. '''Mike Ossipoff''' '''Support:''' [[SSD]], and Methods that meet [[Favorite Betrayal criterion\|FBC]]. These include [[Approval voting\|Approval]], [[Range voting\|Range Voting]], [[MDDA]], [[MDDB]], [[MDD]], [[ER-Bucklin\|ER-Bucklin(whole)]], and [[MAMPO]]. '''Oppose:''' methods other than [[SSD]] that don't meet [[Favorite Betrayal criterion\|FBC]] (I'm referring to what I'd support or propose when a proposal is being chosen, not what I'd support or oppose after it has been put to the public). '''[[User:Allens\|Allen Smith]]''' '''Support:''' [[Approval voting]], [[Approval-Condorcet Hybrids]], [[Condorcet//Approval]] and variants (e.g., [[Improved Condorcet Approval]]). '''Close to supporting:''' [[Condorcet Criterion\|Condorcet]] - any completion method, provided the result is a member of the [[Schwartz set]]. '''Close to opposing:''' [[Borda count\|Borda]] '''Oppose:''' [[Plurality]], [[Random Ballot]] ==Legislative election methods== Line 56 ⟶ 81: '''Support:''' [[CPO-STV]], [[single transferable vote]] '''Close to opposing:''' [[Cumulative voting]], [[limited voting]], [[SNTV]] '''Conditional support:''' Support [[Party-list proportional representation\|party list]] as a transitional system in some cases where infrastructure is limited, and where a large part of the population lacks the numerical literacy skills need for an STV vote. '''Kevin Venzke''' Line 70 ⟶ 98: '''Not supporting:''' Two party methods (ok if kept intentionally, not just because of fear of changes or to stay in power) '''David Gamble''' '''Support:''' [[single transferable vote]], [[CPO-STV]]. '''Close to supporting:''' Any other proportional method - open party list, closed party list, semi-open party list, [[MMP]]. '''Improvement on single seats methods for multi-member bodies:'''[[SNTV]], [[Limited vote]], [[Cumulative voting]]. '''Oppose:''' Single seat methods for multi-member bodies in single seats,single seat methods in multi-member districts. == See also == *[[Method evaluation poll]] [[Category:Advocacy]]