[EM] Toby Pereira, PR voting methods

[Juho Laatu]

The intended difference was that in option 2 one can use any optimization algorithm, and after some time we will see who has found the best slate, while in the proposed new variant of the option we would have a known algorithm, that would be run with known previously agreed parameters. And after that program would finish running, we would know who the winner is. The end result should be in most cases the same. The only difference is to have an agreed method vs. a competition on who can find the best slate in some agreed time.

Juho



On 8.7.2011, at 1.05, Toby Pereira wrote:

> I'm not sure I exactly followed that. Jameson's option 2 is to look at the nominated slates and see which is best. You could also still use one of the other methods to find a possible winner and then compare it with the best nominated slate (if they are different). Is that anything like what you're saying?
> 
> From: Juho Laatu <juho4880 at yahoo.co.uk>
> To: election-methods Methods <election-methods at electorama.com>
> Sent: Thu, 7 July, 2011 22:51:45
> Subject: Re: [EM] Toby Pereira, PR voting methods
> 
> I'd like to add one more option. It is actually close to option 2 below. Specify separately how to compare two slates (which one is better) and what optimization algorithm will be used when trying to find the best slate. The optimization algorithm may change from one election to the next, but the comparison rule stays the same. Also in this method algorithmic improvements can improve the method.
> 
> Juho
> 
> 
> On 7.7.2011, at 23.17, Jameson Quinn wrote:
> 
>> 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  <-- 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
>> 
>> 
>> ----
>> 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/20110708/dead5017/attachment-0004.htm>