[EM] Toby Pereira, PR voting methods

[Jameson Quinn]

Assume you have some way to score the "goodness" of a slate of
representatives. You want to find the best possible such slate, but you
don't have the computational resources to score all possible slates. The
options are:

1. Add candidates one at a time. Advantages: deterministic and simple.
Disadvantages: not very optimal.
2. Use the best nominated slate. Advantages: takes advantage of any future
algorithmic improvements without needing new rules. Disadvantage: could
provide an edge to those with more computational resources; requires time
for people to nominate slates.
3. Add candidates N at a time, with N being as big as your computer can
handle.

All of the above have been discussed. But there's another possibility, which
is probably better than 3:

4. "One out and two in" - at each step, find the best slate which differs
from the prior step by removing M candidates and then adding M+N. This is
almost certainly computationally feasible for N=M=1.

2011/7/7 Toby Pereira <tdp201b at yahoo.co.uk>

> On my web page where I describe my Proportional Range Voting System (
> http://www.tobypereira.co.uk/voting.html), I have suggested that it should
> be possible for a computer to sort out the result in a reasonable amount of
> time. Of course, this may not actually be the case considering the number of
> possible winning sets of candidates that you might get in some elections.
>
> So as with other systems, a sequential system could be used. Calculate who
> would be the winning candidate in a single-winner election and then find the
> best combination of two winners, given that the single winner is elected.
> Then with these two elected, find the best combination of three and so on.
> Then if this takes it too far the other way and makes it too "easy" for a
> computer to calculate you can select candidates in blocks of two or three. I
> think I've seen Forest Simmons and others discussing this hybrid version of
> sequential/non-sequential systems.
>
> I think this would still be a very different system to Reweighted Range
> Voting, especially consdering that it elects single winners in a different
> way.
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* Warren Smith <warren.wds at gmail.com>
> *To:* election-methods <election-methods at electorama.com>
> *Sent:* Sun, 3 July, 2011 20:25:35
> *Subject:* [EM] Toby Pereira, PR voting methods
>
> Two are RRV
>   http://rangevoting.org/RRV.html
> and asset voting
>   http://rangevoting.org/Asset.html
>
> A recent real-world election that used RRV is described here:
>   June2011RealWorldRRVvotes.txt
>
> In T.P.'s essay it'd be nice if he subdivided it into smaller chunks
> with subheading titles, and summarized whatever he concluded
> concisely.
>
> --
> Warren D. Smith
> http://RangeVoting.org <http://rangevoting.org/>  <-- add your endorsement
> (by clicking
> "endorse" as 1st step)
> and
> math.temple.edu/~wds/homepage/works.html
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
>
> ----
> 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/20110707/4f23fa84/attachment-0004.htm>