User:KelvinVoskuijl/Descending Borda Coalitions: Difference between revisions
User:KelvinVoskuijl/Descending Borda Coalitions (view source)
Revision as of 22:46, 12 April 2024
, 2 months agoRemoved redirect to User:KelvinVoskuijl/Descending Baldwin Coalitions
(KelvinVoskuijl moved page User:KelvinVoskuijl/Descending Borda Coalitions to User:KelvinVoskuijl/Descending Baldwin Coalitions) Tag: New redirect |
(Removed redirect to User:KelvinVoskuijl/Descending Baldwin Coalitions) Tags: Removed redirect Visual edit |
||
Line 1:
''Descending Borda Coalitions''' is a electoral system similar to Descending [[Descending Solid Coalitions]] except it uses Borda counting and points totals. It was first described by Kelvin Voskuijl in 2024. It is unknown if it is a Condorcet method.
== Description ==
Every possible set of candidates is given a score equal to the Borda points of voters who are ''solidly committed'' to the candidates in that set. A voter is solidly committed to a set of candidates if he ranks every candidate in this set strictly above every candidate not in the set. At each counting step, all candidates who are not supported by the coalition are eliminated until one candidate remains, In a variant, the coalition points are recalculated ater every elimination.{{Tenn voting example}}
{| class="wikitable" style="border:none"
! {{diagonal split header|Candidate|Voters}}
!Memphis
!Nashville
!Knoxville
!Chattanooga
| rowspan="5" style="border: none; background: white;" |
!Score
|-
!Memphis
|42×3=126
|0
|0
|0
|126
|-
!Nashville
|42×2 = 84
|26×3 = 78
|17×1 = 17
|15×1 = 15
|194
|-
!Knoxville
|0
|26×1 = 26
|17×3 = 51
|15×2 = 30
|107
|-
!Chattanooga
|42×1 = 42
|26×2 = 52
|17×2 = 34
|15×3 = 45
|173
|}
Since no candidate has more than half of the points, we rank the coalitions
* 600 {M,N,C,K}
* 348 {N,C,K}
* 252 {M,N,C}
* 210 {M,N}
* 160 {C,K}
* 130 {N,C}
* 126 {M}
* 78 {N}
* 51 {K}
* 45 {C}
The coalition witht the most points does not involve Memphis, so we eliminate that, candidate, then the next coalition does not involve Knoxville, so we eliminate that, the next coaltion does not involve Chattanooga, so we eliminate Chattanooga, which only leaves Nashville,
=== With reranked coalitions ===
If we use reranked coaltions,
then we get to the folllowing coalitions points
* 300 {N,C,K}
* 126 {M,N,C}
* 84 {M,N}
* 96 {C,K}
* 78 {N,C}
* 0 {M}
* 52 {N}
* 34 {K}
* 30 {C}
Nashville would win.
=== With Dowdall scoring ===
With Dowdall scoring we would have the following table
{| class="wikitable" style="border:none"
! {{diagonal split header|Candidate|Voters}}
!Memphis
!Nashville
!Knoxville
!Chattanooga
| rowspan="5" style="border: none; background: white;" |
!Score
|-
!Memphis
|42×1=42
|26×1/4 = 6.5
|17×1/4 = 4.25
|15×1/4 = 3.75
|56.5
|-
!Nashville
|42×1/2 = 21
|26×1 = 26
|17×1/3 = 5.6667...
|15×1/3 = 5
|57.667...
|-
!Knoxville
|42×1/4 = 10.5
|26×1/3 = 8.333...
|17×1 = 17
|15×1/2 = 7.5
|43.667...
|-
!Chattanooga
|42×1/3 = 14
|26×1/2 = 13
|17×1/2 = 8.5
|15×1 = 15
|50.5
|}
* 208 1/3 {M,N,C,K}
* 106 1/3 {N,C,K}
* 77 {M,N,C}
* 63 {M,N}
* 48 {C,K}
* 39 {N,C}
* 42 {M}
* 26 {N}
* 17 {K}
* 15 {C}
'this article is still being created '
| |||