Anonymous user
User:R.H.: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
imported>R.H. No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (8 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 1:
==Judge and jury system where the judge gets rated==
[[User:R.H./Judge_and_jury]]
==New(?) single winner method==
[[User:R.H./Condorcet,_IRV,_travel_through_time_and_dimensions]]
==Approval Random==
Line 20 ⟶ 25:
Approval Random does not satisfy the Majority Criterion. It is not impossible that a candidate with 60% "favoured" votes loses to a candidate with no first votes but 61% "also approved" votes. It is also not impossible that a candidate with 1% "favoured" votes wins to a candidate with 49% "favoured" votes.
==Vote-Trading: The most simple proxy vote system?==
A system for non-proportional representation that allows trading of votes. Independently from me, many other people had ideas about "proxy voting" or "delegated voting" which are much more refined. I think mine is the most primitive possible, which is also sort of a quality.
Your ballot looks like this:
Vote for 1 of the candidates:
A ( )
B ( )
C ( )
D ( )
Allow trading with your vote?
YES [ ]
'''Counting'''
First, we look if a candidate gets more than 50% of the votes, because that would be such a clear support that this should be the final result. Otherwise, some votes can get traded for a defined timeframe. Candidates can get such votes if they make concessions to candidates that give those votes. After time is up, the one with most votes wins.
Given that proxy voting is quite a new idea, this proposal is a rather tame version. First, once traded votes can't get traded again. "Allow trading with your vote?" means two things: It is the option for every voter to allow one's vote given to another candidate. And it is the option for every voter to accept that one's candidate will make concessions to others. A candidate's uncompromising votes can't be traded at all and in case the candidate makes concessions to others his/her uncompromising votes expire. This gives both voters for strong and weak candidates a reason to show some will to compromise.
I think Plurality Proxy Choice would be a good name.
==Instant version of approval with a second round==
Every voter gives a ranked ballot with an approval cutoff. First, the two with most approval are determined. Between these two the winner is decided by looking at all ballots for who is more often ranked ahead of the other.
[http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2005-June/016112.html D'oh.]
| |||