User talk:Kristomun: Difference between revisions
→Voting theorists Page
(→Quick intro: - could you fill something in at User:Kristomun?) |
|||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 10:
The wiki is 14 years old and has never had a ton of activity, so the goals/policies were never really solidified. Your input is welcome, especially on how to handle the separation of biased advocacy from neutral informative content (which are both welcome). See [[Electowiki:The caucus]] for the discussion topics and [[Electowiki:Policy]]. — [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] ([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 18:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
== [[Condorcet IRV page]] ==
Thank you so much for going through & cleaning that up (removing LNH bits)! I had meant to go do it after our discussion but got sidetracked. Much appreciated! 🙏
--[[User:Marcosb|Marcosb]] ([[User talk:Marcosb|talk]]) 20:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
== [[:Category:Consensus multiwinner methods]] ==
Line 36 ⟶ 42:
Hi [[User:Kristomun]], I'm 99.9% sure I know who you are from your username, but I want to respect the privacy of users who wish to remain anonymous (e.g. just like I respect the privacy of [[w:User:RRichie|User:RRichie over on Wikipedia]], even though the username, the talk page, and the edit history all give a hint or two). It's helpful (but not required) to know identities to patrol for conflict of interest on open wikis like this. Regardless, could you fill something in at [[User:Kristomun]], even if it's "I'm User:Kristomun and I sometimes edit Electowiki", just so that your user page isn't a redlink? :-) -- [[User:RobLa|RobLa]] ([[User talk:RobLa|talk]]) 00:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
: I thought it'd be pretty obvious who I were from my nick. If I wanted to be anonymous, I would've chosen something more... opaque, like "the anonymous mouse" :-) Anyway, I've created a page now. [[User:Kristomun|Kristomun]] ([[User talk:Kristomun|talk]]) 11:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
== Voting theorists Page ==
[[User:Kristomun|Kristofer]], I would support your inclusion on the [[Voting theorists]] page if you would flesh out your user page with your contributions to make them clear. I know much of it has been simulations which may not really count but there is one part you mention I am super interested in. You mention the tradeoff between representativity and utilitarian efficiency of multiwinner methods. Can you make an electowiki page detailing the results? Is it possible to add some of the more modern systems to that analysis like [[Sequentially Spent Score | SSS]], [[Sequential Monroe voting | SMV]] and [[Allocated Score]]? --[[User:Dr. Edmonds|Dr. Edmonds]] ([[User talk:Dr. Edmonds|talk]]) 16:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
🙏
: To not toot my own horn too much, I've asked someone else what he thinks are my most important contributions. I haven't yet heard back from him and so I sort of forgot about this. But I would say (in no particular order): the proof that reversal symmetry, Condorcet, and DMTBR are incompatible; the exact minimum manipulability calculations for ranked voting with few voters and three or four candidates; and my "manual DSV" posts about the limits of methods that seek to circumvent Gibbard-Satterthwaite by failing universal domain. I don't think any of these are on the scale of, say, Green-Armytage's contributions, though.
: Regarding your question, it would take a pretty deep refactoring of my code, because it's based around ranked voting data structures. There's no theoretical barrier to applying the tradeoff calculations to cardinal methods, but in practice a lot of coding would have to be done to make it work. Making a page on the results should be relatively easy; I'll try to remember to do that :-) I could also add those other results to electowiki (e.g. the strategy results or the rev. sym. proof). [[User:Kristomun|Kristomun]] ([[User talk:Kristomun|talk]]) 20:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
| |||