Ranked Choice Including Pairwise Elimination: Difference between revisions

Ranked Choice Including Pairwise Elimination (view source)

Revision as of 00:02, 30 March 2022

809 bytes added , 2 years ago

→‎RCIPE STV: Refined counting details for STV version when decimal influence values are not allowed

VisualWikitext

VoteFair

106

edits

Revision as of 05:11, 29 March 2022 (view source) VoteFair (talk \| contribs) (→‎RCIPE STV: Refined counting details for STV version) Tag: Visual edit ← Older edit		Revision as of 00:02, 30 March 2022 (view source) VoteFair (talk \| contribs) (→‎RCIPE STV: Refined counting details for STV version when decimal influence values are not allowed) Tag: Visual edit Newer edit →
Line 148: If decimal influence amounts are not allowed, the following modifications can be used: * ~~The~~Instead of giving a single reduced influence amount ~~of the~~to ballots that ~~contribute to~~support an elected candidate's, ~~transfer~~some ~~count can be randomly assigned to either zero or one, with~~of the ~~number of these~~supporting ballots ~~getting~~are agiven ~~zero~~full influence ~~amount being equal to the quota count,~~ and ~~the~~others ~~remaining~~are ~~randomly~~given ~~selected contributing ballots would get an~~zero influence ~~amount of one. For maximum fairness, these random selections can differ from one counting round to the next~~. * Selecting which ballots get full influence and which ballots get zero influence should make use of information about how many ballots share the same marking pattern. For example, if 100 ballots have the same marking pattern and the decimal calculation method would reduce their influence to 0.8 of a vote each, then selecting any 80 of these ballots to get full influence and giving the remaining 20 ballots zero influence produces the same result as the decimal approach. * Ballots on which more than one remaining candidate shares the same highest ranking level are uniformly allocated to the remaining shared-level candidates. This means that the example above involving candidates A, B, C, and D would give half the ballots that have an influence count of one (during that round) to candidate C, and would give the other half to candidate D. * Ballots that have unique or uncommon marking patterns must be selected semi-randomly, yet the total number of supporting ballots getting zero influence must equal the quota count, and the total number of ballots getting full influence must equal the elected-candidate's transfer count minus the quota count. * Instead of using the same semi-random selections from one counting round to the next, the semi-random selection process should be done for each counting round. This approach makes it unlikely that the same specific ballot will get zero influence significantly more than any other specific ballot that has similar markings. * Ballots on which two or more remaining candidates share the same highest ranking level are distributed almost the same as in the decimal calculation method. The significant difference is that ballots with zero influence (during that counting round) are not distributed among the shared-level candidates. [[Category:Sequential loser-elimination methods]]