Talk:Ranked Robin: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
No edit summary |
(→Comparison to Black's method: does any form of the Borda count benefit from the use of pairwise matrices?) |
||
Line 19:
::: Suppose that a candidate is ranked first on a complete (untruncated) ballot, among the finalists. Then it gets one point from that ballot for each other finalist. If the candidate is ranked kth, it would get one point for each finalist, minus (k-1) points for the ones ranked ahead. So its score from a ballot is linearly related to its position, which describes (I think) the weighted positional system of Borda. [[User:Kristomun|Kristomun]] ([[User talk:Kristomun|talk]]) 11:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
:::: [[User:Kristomun|Kristomun]] says: "''Ranked Robin uses ordinal ballots, so it can't be Score''". As I read through the description of [[Ranked Robin]] more closely, I see there's a lot that I don't understand about the proposal. As written, it describes a "ranked ballot" (where "1" is at the top) but it seems possible to use a [[STAR voting]]-style ballot (the way my old [[electowidget]] voting mechanism worked). That said, as a drop-in replacement for [[instant-runoff voting]], this seems fine, and moreover, it seems to me that cycles will be rare in practice, so the [[Copeland's method|Copeland set]] seems likely to only have one winning candidate in 99.9% of the cases. Regardless, since the system uses pairwise matrices (like most Condorcet methods do), it's hard to see how this method has much in common with Borda, since adding candidates to the bottom of the ranking shouldn't make any difference in the pairwise comparison between the candidates above the newly added candidate.-- [[User:RobLa|RobLa]] ([[User talk:RobLa|talk]]) 04:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
== Clone dependence ==
| |||