Spatial models of voting: Difference between revisions
m
Fixed reference overlap error
(We should rename the page currently named "Spatial model of voting" to "Spatial models of voting", since there are many spatial models of voting and candidates. Discuss: Talk:Spatial model of voting#Plural.) |
m (Fixed reference overlap error) |
||
(6 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 1:
== Projections ==
Line 47 ⟶ 48:
=== Yee diagrams ===
{{Main|Yee diagram}}[[File:Yee diagram IrvSq2.png|thumb|A [[Yee diagram]] of [[Instant-Runoff Voting|instant-runoff voting (IRV)]] with four candidates, showing that the Yellow candidate has been squeezed out (due to "[[
=== Three Telos Model ===
Line 67 ⟶ 68:
Political opinion can be divided into essentially any number of dimensions. Some other examples include the 3-dimensional [https://sapplyvalues.github.io Sapply Compass], the 4-dimensional [https://8values.github.io/ 8values] space, and the [https://9axes.github.io/ 9Axes] space.
One study of German voters found that at least four dimensions were required to adequately represent all political parties.<ref name=":
There has been references to many other political compasses that are similar, orthogonal or even contradictive.
Line 78 ⟶ 79:
== Limitations ==
{{Main|
While the spatial model is intended to be an approximate representation of real-life opinion distributions, the number of dimensions chosen for the geometric embedding impose fundamental restrictions on the allowed number of candidates which may be effectively distinguished by the voters using ballots, as there is only a finite number of regions possible for each possible ranking assignment of candidates. Conversely, an insufficient number of candidates in a ballot (either by a small number of candidates or arbitrarily restricting the ballot) will also fundamentally restrict the effective opinion space voters can express, as the effective dimensionality is inherently reduced.
|