# [EM] RE: fun example

Simmons, Forest simmonfo at up.edu
Thu May 19 13:42:26 PDT 2005

```Jobst's example could be something like a vote to determine where the olympic games or some world wide conference was to take place.

Notice that the question, "Which is the best city for this purpose?" has different answers for different voters, as opposed to some voters being right and some being wrong.

If (in order to share costs) all the participants were to contribute (to a transportation pool) the average cost of getting to the winning city, then it would be to their economic advantage to choose the city minimizing the average voter distance (assuming that flight costs were proportional to distance).

But that's a pretty big "if."

Since in most cases it's every man for himself, it would probably be more practical to achieve a measure of fairness by rotating the location among the cities.

Democratic Fair Choice would accomplish this fairly, over time.

Forest

From: Jobst Heitzig <heitzig-j at web.de>
Subject: [EM] strange 2-dim. fun example
To: election-methods-electorama.com at electorama.com
Message-ID: <428A7077.6060906 at web.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Hi folks!

Here's some fun example showing that, even with a 2-dimensional model
and only 4 candidates, classical voting methods can give completely
different winners and orders...

In the example, 100 voters from all over the globe elect the earth's
capital from the following candidates (which build an almost regular
tetrahedron):

CANDIDATES:

candidate     phi  theta
|             |    |  place
|             |    |  |

a           145  -38  Melbourne
b          -123   38  San Francisco
c           -58  -35  Buenos Aires
d            53   30  Persepolis

In this, phi and theta are angular coordinates with respect to Greenwich
and to the equator, in degrees.

The voters' preferences are simply by distance, and all approve the
nearest two cities:

VOTERS:

voters
| preferences (according to distance)
| and approval cutoffs:
| |           phi  theta
| |           |    |  place
| |           |    |  |

4 a>b>>c>d  178  -17  Fidji Islans
3 a>b>>d>c  147   -9  Port Moresby
8 a>c>>b>d  173  -44  Christchurch
5 a>d>>b>c  134  -23  Alice Springs
6 a>d>>c>b   78  -39  St. Paul Island

7 b>a>>c>d -159   22  Honolulu
8 b>c>>d>a  -83   23  Havana
8 b>d>>c>a -113   53  Edmonton

5 c>a>>b>d  -68  -50  Piedrabuena
3 c>a>>d>b  -27  -76  Halley Bay
8 c>b>>a>d  -91    0  Galapagos Islands
3 c>b>>d>a  -60   -3  Manaus
4 c>d>>a>b   18  -34  Cape Town
1 c>d>>b>a  -28  -20  some small island east of Rio de Janeiro

6 d>a>>b>c  114   23  Hong Kong
5 d>a>>c>b   78    4  Male
5 d>b>>a>c   69   42  Tashkent
3 d>b>>c>a   38   56  Moscow
8 d>c>>b>a    4    7  Lagos

---
100

Now let us see what different methods do with this information:

ANALYSIS:

------------------------------
c   b   d   a
------------------------------
1st ranks      24  23  27  26  --> plurality order: d>a>c>b
2nd ranks      24  26  24  26
------------------------------
approval       48  49  51  52  --> approval order:  a>d>b>c
------------------------------
3rd ranks      33  33  17  17
4th ranks      19  18  32  31  --> "skating" order: a>d>b>c
------------------------------
Borda score   153 154 146 147  --> Borda order:     b>c>a>d
------------------------------
above c         -  49  49  49
above b        51   -  46  49
above d        51  54   -  49  --> transitive defeats,
above a        51  51  51   -      minmax order:    c>b>a>d
------------------------------
Copeland score  3   2   1   0  --> Copeland order:  c>b>d>a
------------------------------
IRV            24  23  27  26
31      35  34
51  49  --> IRV order:       d>a>c>b
------------------------------
random ballot and DFC
winning probabilities:
.24 .23 .27 .26
------------------------------

If I didn't mess the numbers up, the classical methods
Approval/Borda/Condorcet/Plurality elect A/B/C/D, respectively.

As it turns out, each of the cities can get each rank from 1 to 4
depending on the method, but there is not a single defeat circle which
would indicate any problems...

Aren't such examples a good reason to always consider more than just one
piece of the information (like approval or ranks or defeats or direct
support) and instead combine them to get the whole picture?

Yours, Jobst

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 10516 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20050519/b1a90226/attachment-0002.bin>
```

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list