Ranked Robin: Difference between revisions

From electowiki
Content added Content deleted
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 2: Line 2:


== History ==
== History ==
Ranked Robin was invented by [[User:Sass|Sass]] on 30 September 2021 and named by Sara Wolk on 7 November 2021. As an enthusiast of [[Cardinal voting systems|cardinal voting methods]] and a strong advocate for voter empowerment, Sass saw a timely need for a sufficiently-accurate [[Ranked voting|ranked voting method]] that was on par with the simplicity of voting methods like [[STAR Voting]] and even [[Approval Voting]], particularly in the [[United States]]. Ranked Robin is effectively identical to the earliest known Condorcet method invented by [[Ramon Llull]] in his 1299 treatise ''Ars Electionis''
Ranked Robin was invented by [[User:Sass|Sass]] on 30 September 2021 and named by Sara Wolk on 7 November 2021. As an enthusiast of [[Cardinal voting systems|cardinal voting methods]] and a strong advocate for voter empowerment, Sass saw a timely need for a sufficiently-accurate [[Ranked voting|ranked voting method]] that was on par with the simplicity of voting methods like [[STAR Voting]] and even [[Approval Voting]], particularly in the [[United States]]. Ranked Robin is nearly identical to the earliest known Condorcet method, invented by [[Ramon Llull]] in his 1299 treatise ''Ars Electionis''<ref name="Hagele">{{cite journal |author1=G. Hägele |author2=F. Pukelsheim |lastauthoramp=yes | title=Llull's writings on electoral systems | journal=Studia Lulliana | year=2001 | volume=41 | pages=3–38 | url=http://www.math.uni-augsburg.de/stochastik/pukelsheim/2001a.html }}</ref>, which was similarly replicated by [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquis_de_Condorcet Marquis de Condorcet] centuries later, and then again by [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Herbert_Copeland Arthur Herbert Copeland]. A mathematically identical method to Ranked Robin including the first tie-breaking mechanic was described by Partha Dasgupta and Eric Maskin in 2004<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Maskin|first=Eric|last2=Dasgupta|first2=Partha|date=2004|title=The Fairest Vote of All|url=https://scholar.harvard.edu/maskin/publications/fairest-vote-all|journal=Scientific American|volume=|issue=290|pages=64-69|via=Harvard University}}</ref>. The primary innovation of Ranked Robin is the reduction and formatting of results in such a way that they are palatable to a general audience, as a full [[Pairwise comparison matrix|preference matrix]] can be overwhelming for most voters. This innovation can likely be adapted to simplify the results of other ranked voting methods.

== Balloting ==
Voters may rank as many candidates as they would like. Voters are free to rank multiple candidates equally. Skipped ranks are ignored and will neither hurt nor help a voter's vote. All candidates left unranked are considered tied for the last rank, below the lowest rank marked on a voter's ballot.

== Local tallying ==
Ranked Robin is [[Precinct-summable|precinct summable]] through the use of [[Pairwise comparison matrix|preference matrices]]. Full preference matrices can be created simply by hand if needed and then reported directly to the media and the public, allowing ballots and ballot data to remain local for recounts and risk-limiting audits without risking the threat of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fraud#Vote_buying vote selling] and [https://ballotpedia.org/Intimidation_of_voters voter coercion]. This decentralization of tallying allows elections to remain robust against scaled election attacks, which is vital in jurisdictions that run geographically-spread or high-profile elections. In contrast, voting methods that are not precinct summable, like [[Instant runoff voting|Ranked Choice (Instant Runoff) Voting]] and many expressive [[Proportional Representation|proportional voting methods]], lose these benefits and can lead to distrust in election outcomes if fraud, attacks, or even simple mistakes happen at a centralized counting facility.<references />

Revision as of 07:43, 14 November 2021

Ranked Robin is a Condorcet method focused on the presentation of the results such that everyday voters can understand them without extensive education. Voters are free to rank multiple candidates equally on their ballots. The candidate who wins the most head-to-head matchups against other candidates is elected, much like a round-robin tournament. A strict series of tie-breaking mechanics are defined.

History

Ranked Robin was invented by Sass on 30 September 2021 and named by Sara Wolk on 7 November 2021. As an enthusiast of cardinal voting methods and a strong advocate for voter empowerment, Sass saw a timely need for a sufficiently-accurate ranked voting method that was on par with the simplicity of voting methods like STAR Voting and even Approval Voting, particularly in the United States. Ranked Robin is nearly identical to the earliest known Condorcet method, invented by Ramon Llull in his 1299 treatise Ars Electionis[1], which was similarly replicated by Marquis de Condorcet centuries later, and then again by Arthur Herbert Copeland. A mathematically identical method to Ranked Robin including the first tie-breaking mechanic was described by Partha Dasgupta and Eric Maskin in 2004[2]. The primary innovation of Ranked Robin is the reduction and formatting of results in such a way that they are palatable to a general audience, as a full preference matrix can be overwhelming for most voters. This innovation can likely be adapted to simplify the results of other ranked voting methods.

Balloting

Voters may rank as many candidates as they would like. Voters are free to rank multiple candidates equally. Skipped ranks are ignored and will neither hurt nor help a voter's vote. All candidates left unranked are considered tied for the last rank, below the lowest rank marked on a voter's ballot.

Local tallying

Ranked Robin is precinct summable through the use of preference matrices. Full preference matrices can be created simply by hand if needed and then reported directly to the media and the public, allowing ballots and ballot data to remain local for recounts and risk-limiting audits without risking the threat of vote selling and voter coercion. This decentralization of tallying allows elections to remain robust against scaled election attacks, which is vital in jurisdictions that run geographically-spread or high-profile elections. In contrast, voting methods that are not precinct summable, like Ranked Choice (Instant Runoff) Voting and many expressive proportional voting methods, lose these benefits and can lead to distrust in election outcomes if fraud, attacks, or even simple mistakes happen at a centralized counting facility.

  1. G. Hägele & F. Pukelsheim (2001). "Llull's writings on electoral systems". Studia Lulliana. 41: 3–38.
  2. Maskin, Eric; Dasgupta, Partha (2004). "The Fairest Vote of All". Scientific American (290): 64–69 – via Harvard University.