[EM] Cheering for simplicity/Orphan

[John B. Hodges]

>From: "James Green-Armytage" <jarmyta at antioch-college.edu>
>Subject: [EM] orphaned voting method
>(snip)	It works like this:
>
>1. Ranked Ballots.
>2. Count top choice vote totals.
>3. Hold a pairwise comparison between the two candidates with the lowest
>top choice vote total.
>4. Eliminate the loser of this pairwise competition.
>5. Continue until no more candidates can be eliminated. (One candidate
>remaining, or a set of tied candidates.)
>
>	This method is Condorcet efficient, in that it will always select a
>Condorcet winner, and never select a Condorcet loser.
>	I am not suggesting that it is superior to beatpath or ranked 
>pairs (I of
>course have examples where it doesn't do what I want it to do), but it is
>a good method to keep in mind when discussing variations on IRV. I haven't
>evaluated its strategy properties; that might be interesting.
>
>	Does anyone know the name of this method or who invented it? 
>I think that
>I read about it somewhere, but I can't remember where.
>
>James

(JBH) I presume that, like IRV, this method eliminates losers only 
until one of the remaining candidates gets a majority? In other 
words, it (5) continues until no more candidates need to be 
eliminated.

I get the news from www.fairvote.org, about efforts to enact IRV in 
U.S. localities. Sometimes they forward newspaper articles by 
journalists, who frequently describe IRV as "complicated". Sometimes 
"very complicated". Although the argument is absurd, ALWAYS somebody 
makes the argument that ranked ballots are "too complicated".

Assuming that this discussion list is not purely for entertainment, 
i.e. we hope to actually persuade the U.S. electorate to ADOPT some 
of these methods, IMHO simplicity is a MAJOR virtue. Methods that 
could practically be done with paper ballots counted by hand, with 
all calculations done by hand with pencil and paper by High-School 
graduates, are in a WHOLE DIFFERENT CLASS than methods requiring 
computers. Methods that can be described in a few short sentences are 
in a WHOLE DIFFERENT CLASS than methods that need several paragraphs 
to explain.

Some time back I asked why the folks here worked so hard to find 
other methods of Proportional Representation when we had Party List 
and STV, which seemed to cover all the necessary bases. People 
responded with their complaints about both methods.

IMHO the major virtue of Party List is its simplicity. The major 
advantage of IRV is that it is the one-seat case of STV, which is the 
best PR method that has been widely tried. American voters who manage 
to get over the hurdle of understanding IRV are that much closer to 
understanding (and hopefully accepting) STV.

A good part of my interest in Generalized Bucklin is that it could be 
a "unified method" for both PR and single-seat elections. That is 
itself a plus on "simplicity".

The complaints against STV, as I recall, boiled down to "just like 
IRV, STV will sometimes eliminate the wrong candidate". It is not 
monotonic, so sometimes you get spoiler effects and perverse 
incentives.

The orphan method is one step more complicated than IRV/STV, but it 
is still a "simple" method.

SO: I am wondering what effects you would get if you applied the 
orphan method's elimination rule to multiseat STV? How would the 
results compare with "Sequential STV" or "CPO-STV", both of which are 
complex and computer-dependent?  If the orphan method significantly 
improves the performance of IRV, would it similarly reduce the 
complaints here against STV?
-- 
----------------------------------
John B. Hodges, jbhodges@  @usit.net
Do Justice, Love Mercy, and Be Irreverent.