Talk:Asset voting: Difference between revisions
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) (→Smith Set: new section) |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
: "Delegated voting" has lots of meanings, though, including Liquid Democracy, SODA, PLACE, etc. Sounds like Homunq moved it there out of desperation, not because anyone actually calls it that. |
: "Delegated voting" has lots of meanings, though, including Liquid Democracy, SODA, PLACE, etc. Sounds like Homunq moved it there out of desperation, not because anyone actually calls it that. |
||
: Also it's not clear to me why Asset doesn't suffer from center-squeeze effect, since it seems that center candidates with low numbers of votes will be compelled to give them to other candidates nearby. — [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] ([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 02:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC) |
: Also it's not clear to me why Asset doesn't suffer from center-squeeze effect, since it seems that center candidates with low numbers of votes will be compelled to give them to other candidates nearby. — [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] ([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 02:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC) |
||
== Smith Set == |
|||
<blockquote> Asset always picks a winner or winner set that is in the Smith Set of negotiators' preferences if the negotiators are given enough time to negotiate</blockquote> |
|||
I don't see how this could be true, since it's a single-mark ballot and suffers from vote-splitting/center-squeeze. I find it hard to believe that a candidate who received zero votes would win under Asset, even if they are the Condorcet winner and sole member of the Smith set. — [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] ([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 17:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 17:40, 15 December 2019
Asset voting or Delegated voting
It's interesting seeing the history of the "Asset voting" page on Wikipedia. It appears as though this is the chronology:
- 2008-2009: w:Asset voting is created and nominated for deletion three times (one, two, three) on Wikipedia. The outcome of the first was "keep", but the second and third were both "delete".
- December 2009: just before conclusion of the third nomination, two things happen:
- w:User:Homunq merged the article into the w:Proxy voting page (see the "Asset voting" section of the 2009 "Proxy voting" Wikipedia article).
- an anonymous editor creates Asset voting on Electowiki.
- January 2010: w:User:Robert_Philip_Ashcroft deletes the "Asset voting" section, calling it "linkspam"
- May 2010: w:User:Homunq fixes the w:Asset voting redirect to point to the "Delegated voting" section of the Wikipedia "Proxy voting" article (where it points today).
It would seem that "w:Delegated voting" is how it is referred to on Wikipedia. That seems like a perfectly cromulent name to me.
I discovered all of this looking when I was replying to a thread on reddit. As I'm about to say there, I think this method is really interesting as a way of dealing with crowded primaries. However, I'd like to use preferred terminology to refer to it, and it appears as though "Delegated voting" is winning out over "Asset voting" as the preferred term. -- RobLa (talk) 04:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- "Delegated voting" has lots of meanings, though, including Liquid Democracy, SODA, PLACE, etc. Sounds like Homunq moved it there out of desperation, not because anyone actually calls it that.
- Also it's not clear to me why Asset doesn't suffer from center-squeeze effect, since it seems that center candidates with low numbers of votes will be compelled to give them to other candidates nearby. — Psephomancy (talk) 02:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Smith Set
Asset always picks a winner or winner set that is in the Smith Set of negotiators' preferences if the negotiators are given enough time to negotiate
I don't see how this could be true, since it's a single-mark ballot and suffers from vote-splitting/center-squeeze. I find it hard to believe that a candidate who received zero votes would win under Asset, even if they are the Condorcet winner and sole member of the Smith set. — Psephomancy (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)