User:BetterVotingAdvocacy/Big page of ideas: Difference between revisions
User:BetterVotingAdvocacy/Big page of ideas (view source)
Revision as of 01:11, 7 July 2020
, 3 years ago→Score voting
Line 65:
One way to understand a voter's absolute score for a candidate is that they are expressing their degree of support for that candidate pairwise against a candidate they don't support at all.
The expressiveness of a rated ballot, as measured by "number of possible votes (permutations) a voter can submit", is greatly reduced if removing non-normalized votes from contention (i.e. on the grounds that they reduce voter power). For example, with a scale of 0 to 3 and 3 candidates, there are 4^3=64 possible votes<
A:3 B:2 C:0 (=2*3=6, since you could swap B and C here, and you can also swap B or C for A)▼
A:3 B:1 C:0 (=2*3=6)▼
A:3 B:0 C:0 (=3, since you can't swap B and C here)▼
A:3 B:3 C:0 (=3) --> ▼
▲A:3 B:2 C:0 (=2*3=6, since you could swap B and C here, and you can also swap B or C for A)
▲A:3 B:1 C:0 (=2*3=6)
▲A:3 B:0 C:0 (=3, since you can't swap B and C here)
== Miscellaneous ==
One criterion that might be good for PR methods is the "Duplicated Quotas" criterion: if a PR method elects some candidate in the single-winner case, and the ballots are "duplicated" N times, then if N+1 seats are to be filled, the duplicated winner should win. Example for Condorcet PR:
|