Talk:Stable winner set: Difference between revisions
→Comments: new section
mNo edit summary |
(→Comments: new section) |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 18:
: I'll rephrase by removing the term as the argument may require a different definition of proportionality. [[User:Kristomun|Kristomun]] ([[User talk:Kristomun|talk]]) 17:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
:: Thanks [[User:Kristomun|Kristomun]], this is better. Proportionality is not really a well defined term so it was ambiguous. While I have you. I did not get the size of the image right. It should be smaller to match the rest of the text better. Do you know how to fix this? --[[User:Dr. Edmonds|Dr. Edmonds]] ([[User talk:Dr. Edmonds|talk]]) 05:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
::: I don't think there's a satisfactory solution because text in an image can't flow the way other text does. E.g. it's hard to find a relative size so that it looks right both in portrait and landscape. I'll try rephrasing it in text: the reference link is still available for anyone who would like to read the source. Feel free to revert if it doesn't look right. [[User:Kristomun|Kristomun]] ([[User talk:Kristomun|talk]]) 16:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
:::: I think the best solution would be to make it smaller so that it looks like a caption in all aspects. I thought about writing it out and only taking the actual image but the though of all that formatting scared me off. Can you just make it half size or something? --[[User:Dr. Edmonds|Dr. Edmonds]] ([[User talk:Dr. Edmonds|talk]]) 16:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
::::: Thinking about it a little more, the best solution is probably to use vector graphics and rescale to an appropriate size, while minimizing the amount of text in it. That is, restating/rephrasing as much as possible as article text and keeping the rest in the vector image itself. I tried to convert the relevant PDF page to SVG for this purpose, but inkscape consistently crashed on me. (Inkscape's option to render text glyphs directly worked, but wasted a lot of space and is quite inelegant anyway.) [[User:Kristomun|Kristomun]] ([[User talk:Kristomun|talk]]) 17:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
:::::: I appreciate the effort but this is well outside my skill set so I cant help. --[[User:Dr. Edmonds|Dr. Edmonds]] ([[User talk:Dr. Edmonds|talk]]) 07:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
== Comments ==
First: is there any problem with just using "strictly greater than" instead of "greater than or equal to" in the definition of the stable winner set? Seems like "strictly" lets us avoid having to explain why it differs between the Hare and Droop quota.
Second:
: In the simplest model, voters have a certain quantity of "utility" for each candidate, and they strictly prefer set X over Y iff the sum of their utility for X is greater than the sum of their utility for Y. However, this definition, while simple, is problematic, because it can hinge on comparisons between "utilities" for winner sets of different sizes.
Anything wrong with taking the average instead? Here's a model to justify this. Say each voter's score represents their estimated probability that a legislator will cast a tiebreaking vote in their favor (weighted by importance of the vote). Then, the expected number of ties broken in a voter's favor will be proportional to the average utility of the legislature. —[[User:Closed Limelike Curves|Closed Limelike Curves]] ([[User talk:Closed Limelike Curves|talk]]) 17:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
| |||