i'm posting this to the list.  i hope it's okay.
i had been asked:

i'm not as good as you guys in dreaming up the number of ballots ranked however:
  ex. A>B>C>D
but could you have a defeat matrix where
 
 A>B>C
but   C>A by a smaller defeat strength than A>B or B>C.  But D>A by an even smaller defeat strength, however D<B and D>C?  
i dunno how to dream up ballot combinations to do that.

i think it's more complicated than RP.  it's RP with an additional exception.
 
i have to say i am still not convinced of WV.  probably Schulze-Margins is still the best, but RP-Margins
good enough and possibly easier to sell to policy makers and the public.
i like Margins in principle:  The percentage Margin is (WV-LV)/(WV+LV) and is a measure of the decisiveness of defeat, without respect to the size of the election.  So 5% defeat is a more decisive defeat than a
4% defeat.
But if you consider every Condorcet pair as it's own little election, then the salience of the election would be the number of voters that weigh in on it, which is WV+LV.
So if the net defeat strength (the index to rank the pairs) is the product of how important the election
is with the decisiveness of defeat you get:
   (WV+LV) x (WV-LV)/(WV+LV)  =  WV - LV 
it just seems to me that Margins is better than WV.
but say, WV, is a good idea for defeat strength.  is LV a better idea?
hmmmm.

r b-j                         rbj@audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

Yes, I thought I sent my last email to the list.

I don't find dreaming up ballot combinations easy either.

Obviously if you are just trying to find the winner the more pairwise
defeats you can ignore
the easier your task is.

Chris Benham

On 23/05/2019 9:48 am, robert bristow-johnson wrote:

This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

All criterias (Winning Votes, Margins, Relative Margins) have advantages and are acceptable. The fine choice depends on the interpretation you told voters that would be made of blank ballots. If a blank rank means "all bad", WV is perfect. If it means "all the same" Margin is good, and if it means "I don't know but I trust other voters to express a valid opinion about this option", then RM is perfect. Just tell voters the chosen interpretation of blank tanks in advance so they can fill a sincere ballot...

Envoyé de mon iPhone

 
I think all unranked candidates are tied for last place, no?  Are there any variants of RCV that this is different?
Whether equally-ranked candidates are counted as votes for both candidates or for neither candidates cannot make a difference for Margins.  But it
seems to me that it makes a difference if Winning Votes is the measure of defeat strength.
regrads,
r b-j

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------

Subject: Re: [EM] Defeat strength, Winning Votes vs. Margins, what to do with equal-ranks on the ballot?

From: Stéphane Rouillon stephane.rouillon@sympatico.ca

Date: Thu, May 23, 2019 4:24 pm

To: rbj@audioimagination.com

Cc: election-methods@lists.electorama.com

is good, and if it means "I don't know but I trust other voters to express a valid opinion about this option", then RM is perfect. Just tell voters the chosen interpretation of blank tanks in advance so they can fill a sincere ballot...

--

r b-j                         rbj@audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

Hi Stéphane,

Le jeudi 23 mai 2019 à 18:24:24 UTC−5, Stéphane Rouillon stephane.rouillon@sympatico.ca a écrit : 

For WV the truncated candidates can be presumed "all bad" (or unknown) but for explicit equal rankings,
at the top, "all good" would describe it as well. It's true it's different in meaning from "all the same" but I 
think the main difference is in the practical effect of the vote.

Kevin

I like the approach of telling people clearly what their vote and not giving any preference between two candidates means. In Margins a tie can be said to mean "they are equally good", and in Relative Margins "I support the opinion of those voters that rank them". Winning Votes is quite difficult to explain since it says that the strength of preference is discontinuous with fully ranked votes (51-49 is a strong victory but 49-51 is a heavy loss). I tried to write good explanations on how Winning Votes and Losing Votes (that is also discontinuous) treat pairwise ties and rankings, but the end results were not very intuitive, so I will not include any of that mess here :-).

I however want to discuss about another pairwise preference function. It could be called Moderated Margins. While Relative Margins says that ties mean that "others shall decide, and they shall use the strength of my vote too", Margins says "others shall decide, but without the strength of my vote" (the voter doesn't want to influence the strength of the final decision in any way), and Moderated Margins says "others shall decide, but I vote to make their final decision weaker" (lack of opinions should men that the outcome is weak). Relative Margins says that preference 30-10 should be seen as stronger than 60-40. Margins says that 30-10 should be seen as equally strong. Moderated Margins says that 30-10 should be seen as weaker than 60-40 (maybe "less decisive" since so many voters didn't tell their opinion).

In Moderated Margins a tie can be said to mean "I want them to be more equal" or "against any preference". I.e. this voter wants to flatten the final preferences, and make the final preference strength weaker. Mathematically Moderated Margins can be defined so that 50% participation in the pairwise competition (when 50% of the preferences in the ballots are ties) should mean that the strength of the result should be only 50% of the strength it would otherwise be (Margins can be seen as the starting point here). While Relative Margins results can be seen to be Margins results, where the Margins result will be divided by participation (percentage), in Moderated Margins the Margins result will be multiplied with participation. In that sense they are mirroring each others at the opposite sides of the Margins philosophy.

One could imagine also election methods where voters would be offered the option to cast different kind of ties. They could be e.g. relative, normal and moderated ties, or "others to decide", "I'm neutral", "make them equal". But probably that gets too complicated for any regular election. These options try to capture the sincere opinion of the voter. Strategic implications ffs.

I modelled the preference functions in OSX's Grapher (file available if someone is interested). It was a nice way to visualise and study these and other preference functions in 3D. I'll explain the nature of preference functions and their 3D modelling a bit more.

preference functions (f(x,y)) are defined in triangle (0%,0%), (100%,0%), (0%,100%) of the x-y-plane
x and y coordinates refer to percentage of ballots that prefer A over B and B over A respectively
values of f are in range [-1, 1]
positive value => A preferred over B
negative value => B preferred over A
0 => A and B are tied
1 => A preferred over B with maximal strength
-1 => B preferred over A with maximal strength
"tied" line from (0%,0%) to (50%,50%)
all discussed preference functions (f) give the same value (0)
f(x,x) = 0
"fully ranked" line from (100%,0%) to (0%,100%)
all discussed preference functions (f), except Winning Votes, give the same result
f(x,100%-x) = x
at this line all ballots rank A over B or B over A
values are linear in the sense that f(50%+2x,50%-2x) is always twice as strong preference as f(50%+x,50%-x)
this linear approach is just a typical way to present the preference strengths (could be something else too)
the triangle can be divided in two smaller triangles
(0%,0%), (100%,0%), (50%,50%)
(0%,0%), (50%,50%), (0%,100%)
all discussed preference functions are "symmetric" with respect to A and B
i.e. the two smaller triangles have the same form
they are rotated 180° in 3D around the tie line
f(x,y) = - f(y,x)
in one of the smaller triangles A always wins, and in the other one B always wins
f(x,y)>0 when x>y
f(x,y)<0 when x<y

p = participation
values in range [0, 1]
percentage of ballots that have ranked A over B or B over A
p = x + y
m = margin
values in range [-1, 1]
m = x - y
r = ratio
values in range [-1, 1]
r = (x-y)/(x+y) = m/p

Margins
f(x,y) = x-y
= m = rp
Relative Margins
f(x,y) = (x-y)/(x+y) (defined as 0 when (x+y)=0)
= m/p = r
Moderated Margins
f(x,y) = (x-y)(x+y)
= mp = rp^2
Winning Votes
f(x,y) = if x>y then x elseif x<y then -y else 0
Losing Votes
f(x,y) = if x>y then 1-y elseif x<y then -1+x else 0

Juho,

Publish this... I'll cosign!

Envoyé de mon iPhone

Le 28 mai 2019 à 02:54, Juho Laatu juho.laatu@gmail.com a écrit :

I'm not very active at that front. If you are more active and want to promote this kind of tie related questions, I might cosign :-).

BR, Juho

Hi Juho,
Moderated Margins has a good motivation. The math is interesting.

My first thought that the losing side, the Y>X votes, should not be able to increase the strength of the X>Y defeat. Otherwise they have incentive to remove their opposition to X. So participation is never used directly as defeat strength.
However, it seems that (x-y)*(x+y) simplifies to (x^2)-(y^2). So, as Y>X increases the defeat strength can only go down. That's a good trick.
Kevin

Le mardi 28 mai 2019 à 01:55:19 UTC−5, Juho Laatu <juho.laatu@gmail.com> a écrit :  

I like the approach of telling people clearly what their vote and not giving any preference between two candidates means. In Margins a tie can be said to mean "they are equally good", and in Relative Margins "I support the opinion of those voters that rank them". Winning Votes is quite difficult to explain since it says that the strength of preference is discontinuous with fully ranked votes (51-49 is a strong victory but 49-51 is a heavy loss). I tried to write good explanations on how Winning Votes and Losing Votes (that is also discontinuous) treat pairwise ties and rankings, but the end results were not very intuitive, so I will not include any of that mess here :-).

I however want to discuss about another pairwise preference function. It could be called Moderated Margins. While Relative Margins says that ties mean that "others shall decide, and they shall use the strength of my vote too", Margins says "others shall decide, but without the strength of my vote" (the voter doesn't want to influence the strength of the final decision in any way), and Moderated Margins says "others shall decide, but I vote to make their final decision weaker" (lack of opinions should men that the outcome is weak). Relative Margins says that preference 30-10 should be seen as stronger than 60-40. Margins says that 30-10 should be seen as equally strong. Moderated Margins says that 30-10 should be seen as weaker than 60-40 (maybe "less decisive" since so many voters didn't tell their opinion).

In Moderated Margins a tie can be said to mean "I want them to be more equal" or "against any preference". I.e. this voter wants to flatten the final preferences, and make the final preference strength weaker. Mathematically Moderated Margins can be defined so that 50% participation in the pairwise competition (when 50% of the preferences in the ballots are ties) should mean that the strength of the result should be only 50% of the strength it would otherwise be (Margins can be seen as the starting point here). While Relative Margins results can be seen to be Margins results, where the Margins result will be divided by participation (percentage), in Moderated Margins the Margins result will be multiplied with participation. In that sense they are mirroring each others at the opposite sides of the Margins philosophy.

One could imagine also election methods where voters would be offered the option to cast different kind of ties. They could be e.g. relative, normal and moderated ties, or "others to decide", "I'm neutral", "make them equal". But probably that gets too complicated for any regular election. These options try to capture the sincere opinion of the voter. Strategic implications ffs.

I modelled the preference functions in OSX's Grapher (file available if someone is interested). It was a nice way to visualise and study these and other preference functions in 3D. I'll explain the nature of preference functions and their 3D modelling a bit more.

preference functions (f(x,y)) are defined in triangle (0%,0%), (100%,0%), (0%,100%) of the x-y-plane
    x and y coordinates refer to percentage of ballots that prefer A over B and B over A respectively
values of f are in range [-1, 1]
    positive value => A preferred over B
    negative value => B preferred over A
    0 => A and B are tied
    1 => A preferred over B with maximal strength
    -1 => B preferred over A with maximal strength
"tied" line from (0%,0%) to (50%,50%)
    all discussed preference functions (f) give the same value (0)
    f(x,x) = 0
"fully ranked" line from (100%,0%) to (0%,100%)
    all discussed preference functions (f), except Winning Votes, give the same result
    f(x,100%-x) = x
    at this line all ballots rank A over B or B over A
    values are linear in the sense that f(50%+2x,50%-2x) is always twice as strong preference as f(50%+x,50%-x)
    this linear approach is just a typical way to present the preference strengths (could be something else too)
the triangle can be divided in two smaller triangles
    (0%,0%), (100%,0%), (50%,50%)
    (0%,0%), (50%,50%), (0%,100%)
    all discussed preference functions are "symmetric" with respect to A and B
    i.e. the two smaller triangles have the same form
    they are rotated 180° in 3D around the tie line
    f(x,y) = - f(y,x)
    in one of the smaller triangles A always wins, and in the other one B always wins
    f(x,y)>0 when x>y
    f(x,y)<0 when x<y

p = participation
    values in range [0, 1]
    percentage of ballots that have ranked A over B or B over A
    p = x + y
m = margin
    values in range [-1, 1]
    m = x - y
r = ratio
    values in range [-1, 1]
    r = (x-y)/(x+y) = m/p

Margins
    f(x,y) = x-y
    = m = rp
Relative Margins
    f(x,y) = (x-y)/(x+y) (defined as 0 when (x+y)=0)
    = m/p = r
Moderated Margins
    f(x,y) = (x-y)(x+y)
    = mp = rp^2
Winning Votes
    f(x,y) = if x>y then x elseif x<y then -y else 0
Losing Votes
    f(x,y) = if x>y then 1-y elseif x<y then -1+x else 0

Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info

 
On Tue, May 28, 2019 7:32 pm, Kevin Venzke" stepjak@yahoo.fr wrote:

so weighting this with the square of participation is a good thing?  i need help understanding why.  of course as Y>X increases,
the defeat strength should only go down, if it's about Margins.

but why is rp^2 better than rp?  i can see why r*p is better than just r.  but hyping up p might be too much of a good thing.

L8r

 

r b-j

Margin is good, and if it means "I don't know but I trust other voters to express a valid opinion about this option", then RM is perfect. Just tell voters the chosen interpretation of blank tanks in advance so they can fill a sincere ballot...

Votes is quite difficult to explain since it says that the strength of preference is discontinuous with fully ranked votes (51-49 is a strong victory but 49-51 is a heavy loss). I tried to write good explanations on how Winning Votes and Losing Votes (that is also discontinuous) treat pairwise ties
and rankings, but the end results were not very intuitive, so I will not include any of that mess here :-).

strength of my vote" (the voter doesn't want to influence the strength of the final decision in any way), and Moderated Margins says "others shall decide, but I vote to make their final decision weaker" (lack of opinions should men that the outcome is weak). Relative Margins says that
preference 30-10 should be seen as stronger than 60-40. Margins says that 30-10 should be seen as equally strong. Moderated Margins says that 30-10 should be seen as weaker than 60-40 (maybe "less decisive" since so many voters didn't tell their opinion).

participation in the pairwise competition (when 50% of the preferences in the ballots are ties) should mean that the strength of the result should be only 50% of the strength it would otherwise be (Margins can be seen as the starting point here). While Relative Margins results can be seen to be
Margins results, where the Margins result will be divided by participation (percentage), in Moderated Margins the Margins result will be multiplied with participation. In that sense they are mirroring each others at the opposite sides of the Margins philosophy.

for any regular election. These options try to capture the sincere opinion of the voter. Strategic implications ffs.

--

r b-j                         rbj@audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."