Talk:Stable winner set: Difference between revisions
→Comments: new section
m (Kristomun moved page Talk:Stable Winner Set to Talk:Stable winner set: It's not a proper noun, so it shouldn't be capitalized) |
(→Comments: new section) |
||
Line 28:
:::::: 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)
| |||