"Margin Sorted Minimum Losing Votes (equal rated whole)" candidate in poll
Ted,
I'm not completely clear on what the "equal rated whole" part means, and
likely there are some other possible
voters who have no idea what any of it means.
This is what I think it all means.
Voters rank the candidates from the top, equal ranking an truncation
allowed. Then we construct a pairwise matrix.
A ballot voting A over B gives one vote in the A-B comparison to A and
nothing to B. A ballot that truncates (or votes
equal-bottom) both A and B gives nothing to both in the A-B comparison.
But in the case a ballot explicitly votes A=B above bottom, do you
propose that the ballot give a whole vote each to
A and B in the A-B comparison? (Until I hear otherwise from you, I'll
assume this is what you mean.)
An alternative reasonable idea would be for this to be only the case
where the ballot votes A and B below no other
candidates, and if they are voted A=B above bottom but below top then
the ballot gives half a vote to each of A and
B in the A-B comparison.
In any case I understand that we score each candidate according to the
minimum number of votes they got in a pairwise
loss, and order them from highest to lowest.
Then candidates are listed in score order and if any adjacent pairs are
pairwise out of order then this is corrected by
flipping the out-of-order pair with the smallest margin. If there is a
tie for this we flip the lowest scored tied pair. Repeat until
there are no adjacent pairs of candidates that are pairwise out of
order, then elect the highest-ordered candidate.
I am favourably disposed to this, but I'd like some clarification (and
hopefully some de-confusing justification) on the issue
of how we treat equal ranking (or "rating").
Chris Benham
Ted Sterndodecatheon at gmail.com
mailto:election-methods%40lists.electorama.com?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BEM%5D%20Poll%20on%20voting-systems%2C%0A%20to%20inform%20voters%20in%20upcoming%20enactment-elections&In-Reply-To=%3CCAHGFzOTaPTdMnVw7TELxExvM4ZjbAEtaxJWZ-%2Bpcttf4ATXhPw%40mail.gmail.com%3E
/Sat Apr 6 12:33:35 PDT 2024/
I'd like to nominate
Margin Sorted Minimum Losing Votes (equal rated whole)
Chris, what I nominated for the poll was essentially the same as what you
proposed in October of 2016, but simplified to require no elimination step
iteration. Just one margin sort on MinLV(erw).
http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2016-October/000599.html
ERW means that if A and B have equal rank above bottom, we fill in the
pairwise array as if it were one whole vote of A>B and one whole vote of
B>A.
The reason I proposed it is that seeding the margin sort with MinLV score
in descending order is analogous to minimum pairwise opposition in
ascending order. MinMaxPO is burial resistant, the property we're looking
for, and for margin sort, we want a metric that is analogous to approval,
with descending scores.
If we wanted the exact complement, we would do margin sort on min votes,
to get the closest approximation to MinMaxPO(wv) possible while still being
Smith compliant. However, minmax (or rather maxmin) is not clone proof, as
can be seen by applying margin sort min votes to the example you posted
last week:
http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2024-April/005616.html
By using minLV instead of min votes, C's minimum score of 18 (with clone)
is ignored and so the seed ranking before margin sort is unchanged by the
addition of the clone.
My motivation for the nomination: while margin sorted approval is an
excellent method, the approval cutoff (what I prefer to think of as a
preference cutoff, since all ranked candidates are approved) is an
additional step, requiring either an additional count for implicit
approval, or an extra mental judgment by the voter.
Margin Sorted MinLV(erw) is automatic, and from my limited testing, tends
to find a candidate with strong top ratings.
On Thu, Apr 11, 2024, 01:17 Chris Benham cbenhamau@yahoo.com.au wrote:
Ted,
I'm not completely clear on what the "equal rated whole" part means, and
likely there are some other possible
voters who have no idea what any of it means.
This is what I think it all means.
Voters rank the candidates from the top, equal ranking an truncation
allowed. Then we construct a pairwise matrix.
A ballot voting A over B gives one vote in the A-B comparison to A and
nothing to B. A ballot that truncates (or votes
equal-bottom) both A and B gives nothing to both in the A-B comparison.
But in the case a ballot explicitly votes A=B above bottom, do you propose
that the ballot give a whole vote each to
A and B in the A-B comparison? (Until I hear otherwise from you, I'll
assume this is what you mean.)
An alternative reasonable idea would be for this to be only the case where
the ballot votes A and B below no other
candidates, and if they are voted A=B above bottom but below top then the
ballot gives half a vote to each of A and
B in the A-B comparison.
In any case I understand that we score each candidate according to the
minimum number of votes they got in a pairwise
loss, and order them from highest to lowest.
Then candidates are listed in score order and if any adjacent pairs are
pairwise out of order then this is corrected by
flipping the out-of-order pair with the smallest margin. If there is a tie
for this we flip the lowest scored tied pair. Repeat until
there are no adjacent pairs of candidates that are pairwise out of order,
then elect the highest-ordered candidate.
I am favourably disposed to this, but I'd like some clarification (and
hopefully some de-confusing justification) on the issue
of how we treat equal ranking (or "rating").
Chris Benham
Ted Stern dodecatheon at gmail.com
<election-methods%40lists.electorama.com?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BEM%5D%20Poll%20on%20voting-systems%2C%0A%20to%20inform%20voters%20in%20upcoming%20enactment-elections&In-Reply-To=%3CCAHGFzOTaPTdMnVw7TELxExvM4ZjbAEtaxJWZ-%2Bpcttf4ATXhPw%40mail.gmail.com%3E>
Sat Apr 6 12:33:35 PDT 2024
I'd like to nominate
Margin Sorted Minimum Losing Votes (equal rated whole)
PS to previous:
Since the condorcet winner doesn't have a min lv score, minlv score could
be either 0%, 100%, or 50% by default.
On Thu, Apr 11, 2024, 16:54 Ted Stern dodecatheon@gmail.com wrote:
Chris, what I nominated for the poll was essentially the same as what you
proposed in October of 2016, but simplified to require no elimination step
iteration. Just one margin sort on MinLV(erw).
http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2016-October/000599.html
ERW means that if A and B have equal rank above bottom, we fill in the
pairwise array as if it were one whole vote of A>B and one whole vote of
B>A.
The reason I proposed it is that seeding the margin sort with MinLV score
in descending order is analogous to minimum pairwise opposition in
ascending order. MinMaxPO is burial resistant, the property we're looking
for, and for margin sort, we want a metric that is analogous to approval,
with descending scores.
If we wanted the exact complement, we would do margin sort on min
votes, to get the closest approximation to MinMaxPO(wv) possible while
still being Smith compliant. However, minmax (or rather maxmin) is not
clone proof, as can be seen by applying margin sort min votes to the
example you posted last week:
http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2024-April/005616.html
By using minLV instead of min votes, C's minimum score of 18 (with clone)
is ignored and so the seed ranking before margin sort is unchanged by the
addition of the clone.
My motivation for the nomination: while margin sorted approval is an
excellent method, the approval cutoff (what I prefer to think of as a
preference cutoff, since all ranked candidates are approved) is an
additional step, requiring either an additional count for implicit
approval, or an extra mental judgment by the voter.
Margin Sorted MinLV(erw) is automatic, and from my limited testing, tends
to find a candidate with strong top ratings.
On Thu, Apr 11, 2024, 01:17 Chris Benham cbenhamau@yahoo.com.au wrote:
Ted,
I'm not completely clear on what the "equal rated whole" part means, and
likely there are some other possible
voters who have no idea what any of it means.
This is what I think it all means.
Voters rank the candidates from the top, equal ranking an truncation
allowed. Then we construct a pairwise matrix.
A ballot voting A over B gives one vote in the A-B comparison to A and
nothing to B. A ballot that truncates (or votes
equal-bottom) both A and B gives nothing to both in the A-B comparison.
But in the case a ballot explicitly votes A=B above bottom, do you
propose that the ballot give a whole vote each to
A and B in the A-B comparison? (Until I hear otherwise from you, I'll
assume this is what you mean.)
An alternative reasonable idea would be for this to be only the case
where the ballot votes A and B below no other
candidates, and if they are voted A=B above bottom but below top then the
ballot gives half a vote to each of A and
B in the A-B comparison.
In any case I understand that we score each candidate according to the
minimum number of votes they got in a pairwise
loss, and order them from highest to lowest.
Then candidates are listed in score order and if any adjacent pairs are
pairwise out of order then this is corrected by
flipping the out-of-order pair with the smallest margin. If there is a
tie for this we flip the lowest scored tied pair. Repeat until
there are no adjacent pairs of candidates that are pairwise out of order,
then elect the highest-ordered candidate.
I am favourably disposed to this, but I'd like some clarification (and
hopefully some de-confusing justification) on the issue
of how we treat equal ranking (or "rating").
Chris Benham
Ted Stern dodecatheon at gmail.com
<election-methods%40lists.electorama.com?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BEM%5D%20Poll%20on%20voting-systems%2C%0A%20to%20inform%20voters%20in%20upcoming%20enactment-elections&In-Reply-To=%3CCAHGFzOTaPTdMnVw7TELxExvM4ZjbAEtaxJWZ-%2Bpcttf4ATXhPw%40mail.gmail.com%3E>
Sat Apr 6 12:33:35 PDT 2024
I'd like to nominate
Margin Sorted Minimum Losing Votes (equal rated whole)
Ted,
Thanks for that explanation.
while margin sorted approval is an excellent method, the approval
cutoff (what I prefer to think of as a preference cutoff, since all
ranked candidates are approved)
I haven't heard that version suggested, and it isn't what I had in mind
when I nominated it in the poll, as I specified at the time.
MarginsSorted Approval (specified cutoff):
Voters rank from the top however many candidates they wish and can
also specify an approval
cutoff/threshold. Default approval is only for candidates ranked below
no others (i.e. ranked top
or equal-top).
It occurred to to suggest separate "technical merit" and
"bang-for-buck" polls, but people have different (and/or not clear)
ideas on exactly what is "bang" and what is "buck".
Another idea is to talk about what we consider to be the best and/or
acceptable balloting rules, and those that are or are likely to be
imposed by the "real world".
And then we could have separate polls on methods for the different
ballot rules. Some methods are much more sensitive to these details than
others.
With the poll as it is I top-rank Margins Sorted Approval (specified
cutoff) but other methods (such as this one you nominated) might make it
to equal-top on my final ballot.
A Forrest Simmons invention. Candidates are listed in approval score
order and if any adjacent pairs
are pairwise out of order then this is corrected by flipping the
out-of-order pair with the smallest
margin. If there is a tie for this we flip the less approved pair.
Repeat until there are no adjacent pairs
of candidates that are pairwise out of order, then elect the
highest-ordered candidate.
More later.
Chris
On 12/04/2024 9:27 am, Ted Stern wrote:
PS to previous:
Since the condorcet winner doesn't have a min lv score, minlv score
could be either 0%, 100%, or 50% by default.
On Thu, Apr 11, 2024, 16:54 Ted Stern dodecatheon@gmail.com wrote:
Chris, what I nominated for the poll was essentially the same as
what you proposed in October of 2016, but simplified to require no
elimination step iteration. Just one margin sort on MinLV(erw).
http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2016-October/000599.html
ERW means that if A and B have equal rank above bottom, we fill in
the pairwise array as if it were one whole vote of A>B and one
whole vote of B>A.
The reason I proposed it is that seeding the margin sort with
MinLV score in descending order is analogous to minimum pairwise
opposition in ascending order. MinMaxPO is burial resistant, the
property we're looking for, and for margin sort, we want a metric
that is analogous to approval, with descending scores.
If we wanted the /exact/ complement, we would do margin sort on
/min votes/, to get the closest approximation to MinMaxPO(wv)
possible while still being Smith compliant. However, minmax (or
rather maxmin) is not clone proof, as can be seen by applying
margin sort min votes to the example you posted last week:
http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2024-April/005616.html
By using minLV instead of min votes, C's minimum score of 18 (with
clone) is ignored and so the seed ranking before margin sort is
unchanged by the addition of the clone.
My motivation for the nomination: while margin sorted approval is
an excellent method, the approval cutoff (what I prefer to think
of as a preference cutoff, since all ranked candidates are
approved) is an additional step, requiring either an additional
count for implicit approval, or an extra mental judgment by the
voter.
Margin Sorted MinLV(erw) is automatic, and from my limited
testing, tends to find a candidate with strong top ratings.
On Thu, Apr 11, 2024, 01:17 Chris Benham <cbenhamau@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:
Ted,
I'm not completely clear on what the "equal rated whole" part
means, and likely there are some other possible
voters who have no idea what any of it means.
This is what I think it all means.
Voters rank the candidates from the top, equal ranking an
truncation allowed. Then we construct a pairwise matrix.
A ballot voting A over B gives one vote in the A-B comparison
to A and nothing to B. A ballot that truncates (or votes
equal-bottom) both A and B gives nothing to both in the A-B
comparison.
But in the case a ballot explicitly votes A=B above bottom, do
you propose that the ballot give a whole vote each to
A and B in the A-B comparison? (Until I hear otherwise from
you, I'll assume this is what you mean.)
An alternative reasonable idea would be for this to be only
the case where the ballot votes A and B below no other
candidates, and if they are voted A=B above bottom but below
top then the ballot gives half a vote to each of A and
B in the A-B comparison.
In any case I understand that we score each candidate
according to the minimum number of votes they got in a pairwise
loss, and order them from highest to lowest.
Then candidates are listed in score order and if any adjacent
pairs are pairwise out of order then this is corrected by
flipping the out-of-order pair with the smallest margin. If
there is a tie for this we flip the lowest scored tied pair.
Repeat until
there are no adjacent pairs of candidates that are pairwise
out of order, then elect the highest-ordered candidate.
I am favourably disposed to this, but I'd like some
clarification (and hopefully some de-confusing justification)
on the issue
of how we treat equal ranking (or "rating").
Chris Benham
*Ted Stern*dodecatheon at gmail.com
<mailto:election-methods%40lists.electorama.com?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BEM%5D%20Poll%20on%20voting-systems%2C%0A%20to%20inform%20voters%20in%20upcoming%20enactment-elections&In-Reply-To=%3CCAHGFzOTaPTdMnVw7TELxExvM4ZjbAEtaxJWZ-%2Bpcttf4ATXhPw%40mail.gmail.com%3E>
/Sat Apr 6 12:33:35 PDT 2024/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd like to nominate
Margin Sorted Minimum Losing Votes (equal rated whole)
If I'm understanding this correctly, this method isn't always cloneproof. Consider the following pairwise matrix (entries are row candidate over column candidate)...
A B C D E
A 500 525 485 485 485
B 475 500 510 510 510
C 515 490 500 550 350
D 515 490 450 500 600
E 515 490 650 400 500
The initial ordering is:
A B D E C
485 475 450 400 350
which is pairwise correct so we don't switch any candidates.
If you drop D and E, which are clones of C, you get:
C A B
490 485 475
which is also pairwise correct.
On 4/11/24 19:54, Ted Stern wrote:
Chris, what I nominated for the poll was essentially the same as what you
proposed in October of 2016, but simplified to require no elimination step
iteration. Just one margin sort on MinLV(erw).
http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2016-October/000599.html
ERW means that if A and B have equal rank above bottom, we fill in the
pairwise array as if it were one whole vote of A>B and one whole vote of
B>A.
The reason I proposed it is that seeding the margin sort with MinLV score
in descending order is analogous to minimum pairwise opposition in
ascending order. MinMaxPO is burial resistant, the property we're looking
for, and for margin sort, we want a metric that is analogous to approval,
with descending scores.
If we wanted the exact complement, we would do margin sort on min votes,
to get the closest approximation to MinMaxPO(wv) possible while still being
Smith compliant. However, minmax (or rather maxmin) is not clone proof, as
can be seen by applying margin sort min votes to the example you posted
last week:
http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2024-April/005616.html
By using minLV instead of min votes, C's minimum score of 18 (with clone)
is ignored and so the seed ranking before margin sort is unchanged by the
addition of the clone.
My motivation for the nomination: while margin sorted approval is an
excellent method, the approval cutoff (what I prefer to think of as a
preference cutoff, since all ranked candidates are approved) is an
additional step, requiring either an additional count for implicit
approval, or an extra mental judgment by the voter.
Margin Sorted MinLV(erw) is automatic, and from my limited testing, tends
to find a candidate with strong top ratings.
On Thu, Apr 11, 2024, 01:17 Chris Benham cbenhamau@yahoo.com.au wrote:
Ted,
I'm not completely clear on what the "equal rated whole" part means, and
likely there are some other possible
voters who have no idea what any of it means.
This is what I think it all means.
Voters rank the candidates from the top, equal ranking an truncation
allowed. Then we construct a pairwise matrix.
A ballot voting A over B gives one vote in the A-B comparison to A and
nothing to B. A ballot that truncates (or votes
equal-bottom) both A and B gives nothing to both in the A-B comparison.
But in the case a ballot explicitly votes A=B above bottom, do you propose
that the ballot give a whole vote each to
A and B in the A-B comparison? (Until I hear otherwise from you, I'll
assume this is what you mean.)
An alternative reasonable idea would be for this to be only the case where
the ballot votes A and B below no other
candidates, and if they are voted A=B above bottom but below top then the
ballot gives half a vote to each of A and
B in the A-B comparison.
In any case I understand that we score each candidate according to the
minimum number of votes they got in a pairwise
loss, and order them from highest to lowest.
Then candidates are listed in score order and if any adjacent pairs are
pairwise out of order then this is corrected by
flipping the out-of-order pair with the smallest margin. If there is a tie
for this we flip the lowest scored tied pair. Repeat until
there are no adjacent pairs of candidates that are pairwise out of order,
then elect the highest-ordered candidate.
I am favourably disposed to this, but I'd like some clarification (and
hopefully some de-confusing justification) on the issue
of how we treat equal ranking (or "rating").
Chris Benham
Ted Stern dodecatheon at gmail.com
<election-methods%40lists.electorama.com?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BEM%5D%20Poll%20on%20voting-systems%2C%0A%20to%20inform%20voters%20in%20upcoming%20enactment-elections&In-Reply-To=%3CCAHGFzOTaPTdMnVw7TELxExvM4ZjbAEtaxJWZ-%2Bpcttf4ATXhPw%40mail.gmail.com%3E>
Sat Apr 6 12:33:35 PDT 2024
I'd like to nominate
Margin Sorted Minimum Losing Votes (equal rated whole)
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info