[EM] SODA clarification

Thu Jul 7 23:34:48 PDT 2011

On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 8:33 AM, Jameson Quinn <jameson.quinn at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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.
>
>
Okay, I changed the Wiki.  I'll try to give it a second look tomorrow to see
if I want to re-word anything.

>
> 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/20110707/350d9ba1/attachment-0004.htm>