Talk:Ranked voting: Difference between revisions
m
no edit summary
Dr. Edmonds (talk | contribs) |
mNo edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 122:
::: On a different topic are there any Rawlsian minmax electoral systems? I tried to use the total number of unspent points as a metric in PR systems to measure quality. ie MAX-sum(score) for each voter is the amount of unspent score. So you want to try to minimize the total amount of unspent score. This is basically what [[Sequentially Spent Score]] does with its reweighting but the selection is pure Utilitarian. --[[User:Dr. Edmonds|Dr. Edmonds]] ([[User talk:Dr. Edmonds|talk]]) 15:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
:::: There are the so-called "consensus" or "minmax" multiwinner methods, like [[Minimax approval]]. Let a voter's satisfaction with a council be his max score of a candidates on that council. Then minmax Range chooses the council so as to maximize the minimal satisfaction with that council. Approval is easier, it just minimizes the maximal Hamming distance. Since min and max are not robust statistics, these methods are vulnerable to strategy.
:::: In addition, I'd say unanimity-based voting would fit, because if the worst-off voter doesn't agree to the proposal, it doesn't happen. However, high supermajority and unanimity voting have a status-quo bias, which is what the Heitzig mechanism I've referred to tries to do away with.
:::: As for your other question, I might, but I think I would need more time than I have at the moment to just sit down and think about, as you put it, where to start. So perhaps someday! [[User:Kristomun|Kristomun]] ([[User talk:Kristomun|talk]]) 17:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
::::: [[User:Dr. Edmonds|Dr. Edmonds]], I've written a very rough first version here: [[User:Kristomun/Voting_system_philosophies]]. [[User:Kristomun|Kristomun]] ([[User talk:Kristomun|talk]]) 11:41, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
| |||