Talk:Asset voting: Difference between revisions
→Content from deleted Wikipedia article: respond to User:RobLa
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) |
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) (→Content from deleted Wikipedia article: respond to User:RobLa) |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 59:
:::: So then it's just an oligarchy where the opinions of the negotiators are the only things that matter, and the votes given to them by the populace are irrelevant? — [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] ([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 16:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
::::: Probably, though this view must be balanced by the fact that if Asset is used as a PR method with a hundred or more seats with the entire country voting as one district, and the candidates are forced to be elected whenever they receive a Droop quota (and perhaps the voters have the option of going with a normal party list rather than picking an individual candidate, if they want to), then the voters will have much more of a say in who wins and who doesn't. Also, suppose that you did Asset but with ranked or rated ballots, and where the negotiators' only role is choosing who within the voter-preferred Smith Set (either for a single-winner method or multi-winner method) wins; that would be also be more democratic.
::::: Anyways, do you still find the claim that Asset elects from the negotiators' Smith Set dubious? The point of that claim is to demonstrate that Asset, as a concept, is really just a reframing of the Condorcet principle (which can also be applied to PR), and when applied appropriately (i.e. if a small group election is held where the voters themselves negotiate, so that they actually elect the voter-preferred Condorcet winner, or at least begin to figure out who that is, then they start to understand that the Condorcet winner is like an equilibrium outcome that's iteratively reached if everyone is maximally strategic) or used only as a concept (as an algorithm, or for demonstrating how Condorcet pairwise counting works, for example) can help explain that principle. In other words, the simplicity of Asset can be a segue to understanding voting theory. Consider that understanding Asset PR is a lot easier than understanding CPO-STV or Schulze STV, even though the concept (elect from the Smith Set of winner sets of some group of voters or negotiators) is almost the exact same; once someone understands those finer details of how Asset can get proportional results, they can then use that insight to understand Condorcet PR in general, and then perhaps use that to better understand cardinal PR as well. [[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy|BetterVotingAdvocacy]] ([[User talk:BetterVotingAdvocacy|talk]]) 17:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
== Content from deleted Wikipedia article ==
Content added by [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] in [https://electowiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asset_voting&diff=6652&oldid=6650 this edit (6650)]:
<blockquote>'''Asset voting''' or '''candidate proxy''' is a [[voting system]] which provides [[proportional representation]] by allowing all [[candidate]]s to [[negotiate]] the outcome, using the votes cast for them as [[proxy vote|proxies]] in subsequent rounds. It is unconventional in the sense that not only voters, but also candidates, can directly affect the outcome.
Line 69 ⟶ 75:
This voting system may be used as a model to coordinate multiple heterogenous [[autonomous system]]s which have a [[mission]] with multiple [[goal|objective]]s. The autonomous systems are allowed to influence the [[weight]]s assigned to each objective. Results from a [[simulation]] demonstrated a level of overall mission success comparable to that obtained in an ideal centralised mechanism.<ref>{{cite conference|title=The coordination of multiple autonomous systems using information theoretic political science voting models|coauthors=A. Abel, S. Sukkarieh|publisher=IEEE|booktitle=2006 IEEE/SMC International Conference on System of Systems Engineering|date=24-26 April 2006|year=2006|url=http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/10995/34635/01652289.pdf?temp=x}}</ref>
<references/>
</blockquote>
Content from deleted Wikipedia article -- {{unsigned|Psephomancy}}
:Can we remove the old Wikipedia content above from the Talk: page? We can add it in an appropriate spot on this wiki if we find a place that makes sense and if it belongs on Electowiki, but I made a rudimentary attempt to find the original content in the history over on enwiki, and wasn't able to find it. We should make sure we keep track of the provenance of the text that gets added to this wiki, and this takes a big block of this Talk: page, but isn't really part of a conversation. -- [[User:RobLa|RobLa]] ([[User talk:RobLa|talk]]) 01:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
:: It's from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asset_voting&action=history which you can't see unless you're a Wikipedia admin. I posted it here in case there's some content that can be rescued from the deleted article. If it's all redundant, then delete it from here, too. — [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] ([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 02:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
::: Thanks for the prompt response, [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]]. I appreciate your taking the time to pull things that were aggressively deleted from English Wikipedia (enwiki). I'm an enwiki admin too, so I can at least see the old revisions. What is the oldid and/or timestamp of the revision you pulled this from? We might want to cite the [[w:Wayback Machine|Wayback Machine]] version of the article as the public source. Ultimately, someone should probably do a plagiarism-free rewrite of the parts we want to keep. -- [[User:RobLa|RobLa]] ([[User talk:RobLa|talk]]) 19:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
:::: It looks like I got it from timestamp 20090918105700 before one of its deletions. [https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_voting Wayback Machine doesn't seem to go back that far]. — [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] ([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 05:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
== Asset voting discussion over on reddit ==
[[User:Psephomancy]] started a very interesting discussion about [[asset voting]] over on the EndFPTP subreddit. The discussion: https://www.reddit.com/r/EndFPTP/comments/eniyfl/i_dont_understand_why_anyone_likes_asset_voting/
I haven't had the chance to really read through it, and wrap my brain around the pros and the cons, but it looks like it prompted many great explanations of asset voting that could be used to improve this article. -- [[User:RobLa|RobLa]] ([[User talk:RobLa|talk]]) 20:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
| |||