[EM] SODA clarification

Thu Jul 7 08:33:28 PDT 2011

Andy, I like both of your suggestions. Why don't you try putting them on the
page <http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/Simple_Optionally-Delegated_Approval>yourself?
I don't want this system or that page to be "mine", I just want
them to be good.

2011/7/7 Andy Jennings <elections at jenningsstory.com>

> Jameson,
>
> I'm really liking the SODA method that is evolving.  I have a couple of
> cosmetic suggestions:
>
> First, in the description of SODA, I dislike using the term "delegate" for
> step 3, candidate-to-candidate transfers.  I would only use the word
> "delegate" for step 2, the bullet voters' votes getting delegated to their
> candidates.  I prefer to think of step 3 as the candidates "casting" their
> votes (which includes all the delegated votes they control).  It's a much
> simpler mental model for me.  Since they aren't passing anything on to
> another candidate which can be changed or controlled, I don't consider it
> delegation.  Also, it decreases the implication of smoke-filled rooms (for
> me) to have as little "delegation" as possible.  I think this terminology
> was why I was confused about step 3 in a prior email.
>
> Second, I find it incredibly confusing to say you have to write in "do not
> delegate" if you bullet vote and you don't want your vote delegated.  I
> realize that you want delegation to be the default for bullet voters.  Why
> not organize the ballot with that as a separate question (as follows)?
>
> ------------
> "Vote for as many candidates as you approve:"
>
> [ ] Candidate A
> [ ] Candidate B
> [ ] Candidate C
> [ ] Candidate D
> [ ] ___(write-in)_____
> [ ] ___(write-in)_____
> [ ] ___(write-in)_____
>
> "If you only vote for one candidate, he can choose to transfer his vote to
> one or more alternate candidates in the event that he cannot win, UNLESS you
> check the box below:"
>
> [ ] Do not let the candidate I voted for transfer my vote to other
> candidates
> ------------
>
> Andy
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Jameson Quinn <jameson.quinn at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 2011/7/6 Andy Jennings <elections at jenningsstory.com>
>>
>>> Jameson,
>>>
>>> I have become confused about one point of operation in SODA.  Take this
>>> scenario:
>>>
>>> 35 A>B>C
>>> 34 B>C>A
>>> 31 C>A>B
>>>
>>> If A delegates to A,B then does B have 69 votes he can delegate to B,C or
>>> does he have only 34 he can play with?
>>>
>>> In other words, can votes delegated from one candidate to another be
>>> re-delegated to a third candidate?
>>>
>>
>> B has 34. Delegable votes are only bullet votes. In fact, a real SODA
>> scenario would probably be more like:
>>
>> 25 A (>B)
>> 5 A,X
>> 5 A,B
>>  26 B (>C)
>> 4 B,X
>> 4 B, C
>> 29 C (>A)
>> 1 C,X
>> 1 C,A
>> Initial totals: 36A, 39B, 35C
>> Delegable: 25A, 26B, 29C
>>
>> Note that in this example, C has the most delegable votes and would decide
>> delegation first, even though B has the most total initial votes. In this
>> case - a Condorcet cycle - the result would be the same no matter who
>> delegates first, as long as all candidates use correct strategy. But there
>> are cases where it wouldn't be:
>>
>> 25: Left (>X)
>> 15: Left, Center
>> 5: Left, Right
>> 25: Center (>Right)
>> 30: Right (>Center)
>>
>> The candidate Left has not declared any delegable preferences, but the
>> left voters clearly tend to prefer Center over Right. Center is the
>> Condorcet winner, but Right would get the chance to delegate before Center,
>> and thus would be the strategic winner under SODA. If delegation order went
>> in order of total votes instead of delegable votes, Center would win.
>>
>> Hmm... now that I look at this scenario in black and white, I'm starting
>> to think that delegation order should be in order of total, not delegable,
>> votes. Not that there isn't a case to be made for Right in this election; if
>> Center were really a better result, then they should get either Left's
>> delegation or more delegable votes from the nominally voters who chose
>> [Left, Center] here. This argument like FairVote's handwaving arguments
>> about "strength" of support - which is not necessarily invalid just because
>> it's imprecise and easy to reduce ad absurdem. But... I think that having
>> this scenario go to Right puts too much of a burden of strategic calculation
>> on the [Left, Center] voters.
>>
>> So, yet another adjustment to SODA, I think. Delegation choice goes in
>> descending order of total votes; the person with the most total votes gets
>> the "first move". If my grounded intuition is correct, this should not
>> matter when there's a 3-way cycle, only when there's a pairwise champion
>> (CW).
>>
>> Hopefully this will be the last time I have to adjust SODA. Also note that
>> all the adjustments so far have been minor tweaks; any of the versions so
>> far would work well, though I believe they have been steadily improving.
>> Current rules, as always, are at
>> http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/Simple_Optionally-Delegated_Approval
>>
>> JQ
>>
>>
>>> I looked at the wiki and still am unclear on this.  I still have the
>>> original SODA proposal in my head (where votes could not be delegated
>>> multiple times) and I can't remember if we've changed this detail at some
>>> point.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Andy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Jameson Quinn <jameson.quinn at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Russ, you said that SODA was too complicated. In my prior message, I
>>>> responded by saying that it was actually pretty simple. But thanks for your
>>>> feedback; I realize that the SODA page was not conveying that simplicity
>>>> well. I've changed the procedure there from 8 individual steps to 4 steps -
>>>> simple one-sentence overviews - with the details in sub-steps. Of these 4
>>>> steps, only step 1 is not in your proposal. And the whole of step 4 is just
>>>> three words.
>>>>
>>>> The procedure is exactly the same, but I hope that this version<http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/Simple_Optionally-Delegated_Approval#Procedure>does a better job of communicating the purpose and underlying simplicity of
>>>> the system.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Jameson
>>>>
>>>> ----
>>>> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list
>>>> info
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20110707/9b818cc8/attachment-0004.htm>