[EM] real world 9-winner election using RRV

[Jameson Quinn]

2011/6/25 Kristofer Munsterhjelm <km_elmet at lavabit.com>

> Warren Smith wrote:
>
>> I was contacted by a prestigious musical group to help them hold an
>> election.
>> The election data and results  (pending rechecking & comments by you all)
>> in anonymized form, are here:
>>
>>   http://RangeVoting.org/**June2011RealWorldRRVvotes.txt<http://RangeVoting.org/June2011RealWorldRRVvotes.txt>
>>
>> Feel free to run your favorite alternative multiwinner election
>> methods on same data
>> & report the results.   I used RRV,
>>    http://rangevoting.org/RRV.**html <http://rangevoting.org/RRV.html>
>>
>>
>>
> So I quickly hacked together something to run it through my old multiwinner
> code, but I'm getting unusual results. Could someone check that they get
> what I'm getting?
>
> {C101 C102 C103 C104 C105 C106 C108 C109 C110} for birational voting
> {C101 C102 C103 C104 C105 C106 C108 C109 C110} for Range PAV (integral)
> {C101 C102 C103 C105 C106 C108 C109 C110 C116} for STV
> {C103 C106 C108 C109 C110 C111 C113 C115 C116} for Meek STV
> {C103 C106 C109 C110 C111 C113 C114 C115 C116} for Schulze STV
> {C103 C106 C109 C110 C111 C113 C114 C115 C116} for QPQ
>

How are you handling ties in the STV methods? Just eyeballing it, it seems
that your results are skewing towards the high-numbered candidates (who, in
this election, seem to be weaker candidates - perhaps the ordering is in the
order that they submitted statements, so the least-organized candidates come
last?). And when I look at your ranked inferences, you do indeed put the
highest-numbered candidate first, so I'm wondering if you're actually
(mistakenly?) using "lexically-last" as an arbitrary tiebreaker for ballot
equalities.

Again, that's just from eyeballing, so I could be wrong.

Jameson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20110625/4d807ace/attachment-0003.htm>