[EM] [ESF #1547] True Ranked Choice - for Condorcet

[Jameson Quinn]

This thread has touched several points.

*Branding*

I'm not particularly fond of "TRC" as a name for Condorcet. Ideally, a name
should give some idea of how the system actually works. That was where my
"VOTE" branding idea came from (Virtual One-on-one Tournament Election).
Other ideas along those lines:

True Ranked Choice
Preference Playoff Voting (Note: given a winner of a condorcet system, it is
easy to make a post-hoc "playoff seeding" which results in that winner. For
some condorcet-tiebreakers, it may be possible to give a logical seeding
algorithm which actually gives the right winner, instead of first
calculating the winner and then using that for seeding.)
Beats-All Voting
Best Runoff-Winner Voting
Victory Square (VS.) Voting (This refers to the matrix, but it is mostly an
attempt to get an acronym that would be pronounced "versus voting".)
Pairwise Champion Voting

(In this regard, Range/Score Voting and Approval Voting already have good
names. The Borda count doesn't, but it's not a good system for politics, so
I'm not going to waste time on it. Bucklin could use a better name, here are
some ideas:

American Preferential Voting (This name was actually used in some cases
where Bucklin was implemented in the Progressive era.)
Approved/Preferred Voting (Shares an acronym with the above, best for the
3-rank equality-allowed Bucklin which I support)
Majority Choice Approval (Not my proposal, but I like it. Refers to 3-rank,
equality-allowed.)
Expanding Approval Voting
Approval With Compromises
Fallback Approval Voting (FAV - not a bad acronym)

I'd like to set up web-polls on these naming questions. *What
openly-available web-poll system supports at least Range, and also as many
as possible other, scoring outputs? *(Range is certainly the best system for
such questions, where honest voting is likely to dominate strategy.)

*Criteria*

Bayesian regret is absolutely a fundamentally-important criterion for
evaluating voting systems. However, it is not the only criterion. Neither is
it entirely objective, since any actual Bayesian regret measure depends on a
true-preference model and a strategy model, both of which are inevitably
debatable. I don't think it's helpful to try to use some specific set of
Bayesian regret measures as a be-all-and-end-all argument. They may be
decisive for you, and it's helpful if you say so; but they won't, nor should
they, stop other people from taking other positions.

*"Let's just pick one system we can all support"*

Let's pick all of them. As a practical matter, I support Bucklin > Approval
> STV-PR > Condorcet > Range >> TTR > IRV > [Plurality] > [non-democracy],
in approximate order of expected benefits (potential improvement *
probability of implementation / opportunity cost of support).  I don't ask
you if your ordering of that list is the same as mine before I join you on
the barricades, and you shouldn't ask me.

JQ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20100827/36524d23/attachment-0004.htm>