[EM] Voting system "branding" poll results (Jameson Quinn)

Fri Oct 15 14:48:01 PDT 2010

Thanks, Jameson, for the valuable work.

I'm willing to go along with these suggestions, including MCA for Bucklin, as long as the various wiki's and other websites that already describe MCA as limited to three slots can be updated to avoid confusion.

Forest.

----- Original Message -----
From: election-methods-request at lists.electorama.com
Date: Friday, October 15, 2010 11:57 am
Subject: Election-Methods Digest, Vol 76, Issue 2
To: election-methods at lists.electorama.com

> Send Election-Methods mailing list submissions to
> election-methods at lists.electorama.com
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods-
> electorama.com
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> election-methods-request at lists.electorama.com
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> election-methods-owner at lists.electorama.com
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Election-Methods digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
> 1. Voting system "branding" poll results (Jameson Quinn)
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> -----
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 21:19:09 -0500
> From: Jameson Quinn 
> To: electionsciencefoundation
> , EM
> 
> Subject: [EM] Voting system "branding" poll results
> Message-ID:
> 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> The results are in for the voting system branding
> poll,
> in which I polled new names for using with the general public to 
> advocatethe main classes of voting systems. Just as "IRV" is 
> more descriptive and
> user-friendly than "Hare", there must be less-opaque names than 
> "Bucklin" or
> "Condorcet" which we could use.
> 
> The site where I ran the polls, betterpolls.com, does a really 
> thorough job.
> It uses a generalized range ballot to infer the winner under a 
> number of
> voting systems, does a good job of putting the results in 
> exhaustive tables.
> So if you're interested in that, follow the link above. Here's a quick
> summary, followed by my comments.
> 
> There were only 16 votes. I said before the poll that I was 
> hoping it would
> reach 25 votes, so 16, while not horrible, is not ideal. Still, 
> I think that
> the results are valid.
> 
> *First question: Name for Condorcet*. (I know that there are of 
> course many
> variants of Condorcet, but since they mostly agree for practical 
> cases where
> the Smith set is 1-3 candidates, for the purposes of advocacy 
> they can be
> lumped together.)
> 
> Winners by system:
> SystemWinning nameInstant Runoff Normalized Ratings Condorcet 
> VotingVirtualRound Robin*Round Robin Voting (RRV)* -- nice 
> contrast with IRV. Could be
> Instant Round Robin Voting (IRRV)Raw Rating SummationRound Robin 
> Voting(RRV) -- nice contrast with IRV. Could be Instant Round 
> Robin Voting (IRRV)
> ApprovalCondorcet VotingInstant Runoff VotingPairwise Champion 
> Voting (PCV)
> Essentially, "Condorcet" had the broadest consensus, but "RRV" 
> (an early
> write-in) was most favored, with "PCV" a close second.
> 
> *Second question: Name for Bucklin* (again, lumping all Bucklin 
> variantstogether for the purpose of advocacy)
> The winner across all methods was "*Majority Choice Approval (MCA)*".
> 
> Third question: Name for Range
> This was the old question of Range or Score. Cardinal methods 
> picked Range;
> ordinal ones picked Score. In this case, it is significant that 
> some voters
> were strongly strategic, rating all options at +10 or -10, while 
> others were
> much more neutral, in some cases with no ratings below 0.
> 
> SystemWinner(s)Instant Runoff Normalized RatingsRange Voting 
> (RV)VirtualRound RobinScore Voting (SV)Raw Rating Summation 
> Range Voting (RV)ApprovalRange
> Voting (RV)Instant Runoff VotingScore Voting (SV)
> 
> 
> *Fourth question: Name for IRV/Hare*
> The winner across all methods was "*IRV*".
> 
> *Fifth question: Best system* (this was included only for 
> interest, as the
> sample was not at all scientific)
> The winner across all methods was *Range*. Counting the results 
> by Approval,
> it was tied with Approval and Condorcet, because all three 
> systems got
> nearly unanimously non-negative ratings. Interestingly, there 
> was a
> Condorcet tie for second place, with Approval >> Condorcet > 
> Bucklin >
> Approval. That may have been a statistical fluke, although it 
> actually makes
> some sense to me.
> 
> -----------------
> 
> In my opinion, these results are good. They're not my own top 
> choices, but
> for branding, I trust the wisdom of crowds far more than my own 
> guesses. The
> old Range/Score debate is not resolved, but I have already 
> started to use
> the new names in my advocacy, and they work. For Condorcet, I 
> say "Round
> Robin Voting" for a generic Condorcet-compliant system, but "pairwise
> champion" for the CW. For Bucklin, I understand that "MCA" 
> already has a
> technical meaning as a specific Bucklin variant, but I think it 
> can still be
> used to advocate for the general class of (equality-allowed) Bucklin
> systems.
> 
> I'd be interested to hear if people are willing to join me in 
> starting this
> usage when advocating for these systems with the general public. 
> Honestly, I
> think that it would increase our success. I know that I'm one of 
> the few
> strong advocates for MCA, but there are a number of people on 
> these lists
> who favor some form of RRV as the best system for practical 
> implementation.
> What say you?
> 
> Cheers,
> JQ
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: > electorama.com/attachments/20101014/191f3700/attachment.html>
> ------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Election-Methods mailing list
> Election-Methods at lists.electorama.com
> http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods-
> electorama.com
> 
> End of Election-Methods Digest, Vol 76, Issue 2
> ***********************************************
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20101015/ab329de4/attachment-0002.htm>