Method support poll: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (19 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 10:
*'''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 Choice|DMC]]/[[Ranked Approval Voting|RAV]], [[Smith//IRV]], [[CDTT|CDTT,
'''Oppose:''' [[Borda count]]
'''Close to opposing:''' [[Minimax|minmax]], [[MMPO]], [[Bucklin voting|Bucklin]], [[Descending Acquiescing Coalitions]]▼
▲Close to opposing: [[Minimax|minmax]], [[MMPO]], [[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'''
▲Support: [[ICA]], [[Approval voting]]
'''Support:'''▼
maybe not that bad
improvements/changes (that are not all positive)
not too complex for the voters
methods
'''Close to supporting:''' [[Runoff voting|Two round system]] (not that bad for multiparty countries)▼
'''Not supporting:''' Rating based methods (maybe not feasible for contentious elections like the
government official elections of this query, but good for non-contentious elections)
'''Oppose:'''▼
that way)
*'''David Gamble'''
▲Close to supporting: [[Schulze method|Schulze]], Tideman, or River (using winning votes or possibly [[cardinal pairwise|AWP]]), [[ER-Bucklin]](whole), [[MAMPO]]
'''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 for legislatures only: [[CDTT]]-[[Later-no-harm criterion|Later-no-harm]] combination methods
'''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).
▲Oppose: [[plurality voting|plurality]], [[IRV]], [[ER-IRV]], margins, [[Borda count|Borda]], [[DSC]], rating ballots
*'''
'''Support:''' [[Approval voting]], [[Approval-Condorcet Hybrids]], [[Condorcet//Approval]] and variants (e.g.,
▲Support:
[[Improved Condorcet Approval]]).
▲*[[Condorcet Criterion|Condorcet]]: best for contentious elections if burying threat considered not too bad
'''Close to supporting:''' [[Condorcet Criterion|Condorcet]] - any completion method, provided the result is a member
▲*[[Minmax|Minmax(margins)]]: my default reference point, good utility function, strategy resistance maybe not that bad
of the [[Schwartz set]].
▲*Path based ([[Schulze method|Schulze]] etc.) and winning votes: ok but lots of work for small improvements/changes (that are not all positive)
'''Close to opposing:''' [[Borda count|Borda]]
▲*Pairwise comparison methods enhanced with additional approval or rating information: ok as well if not too complex for the voters
'''Oppose:''' [[Plurality]], [[Random Ballot]]
▲*[[Approval voting|Approval]]: clean method and at least some improvement to the commonly user methods
▲*Best [[IRV]] methods (if pairwise comparison based methods are out of question)
▲Close to supporting: [[Runoff voting|Two round system]] (not that bad for multiparty countries)
▲Not supporting: Rating based methods (maybe not feasible for contentious elections like the government official elections of this query, but good for non-contentious elections)
▲Oppose:
▲*[[plurality voting|Plurality]] (except that it is ok for two party countries IF they want to stay that way)
▲*Regional winner gets all votes of that region
▲*[[Borda count|Borda]] and many other ("more heuristic") methods
==Legislative election methods==
Line 53 ⟶ 79:
*'''James Green-Armytage'''
'''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
▲Close to opposing: [[Cumulative voting]], [[limited voting]], [[SNTV]]
infrastructure is limited, and where a large part of the population lacks the numerical
literacy skills need for an STV vote.
*'''Kevin Venzke'''
'''Support:''' open party list (approval component), closed party list,
possibly a proportional approval scheme
*'''Juho Laatu'''
'''Support:'''
'''Close to supporting:''' [[Closed list|Closed party list]], [[CPO-STV]] (complexity problems)▼
'''Not supporting:''' Two party methods (ok if kept intentionally, not just because of fear of
changes or to stay in power)
*'''David Gamble'''
▲Close to supporting: [[Closed list|Closed party list]], [[CPO-STV]] (complexity problems)
'''Support:''' [[single transferable vote]], [[CPO-STV]].
'''Close to supporting:''' Any other proportional method - open party list,
▲Not supporting: Two party methods (ok if kept intentionally, not just because of fear of changes or to stay in power)
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]]
| |||