[EM] Toy election model: 2D IQ (ideology/quality) model

[Juho Laatu]

This kind of modelling simplifies voter behaviour and political space quite a lot, but I found this kind of approach quite useful in simulations in a two-dimensional opinions space. The level of simplification of the candidate strengthening/weakening approach is roughly the same as the idea of assuming voters to have two-dimensional opinions. I used mostly *factors* to modify candidate strength.

http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2011-July/027976.html

One can use the strength of a candidate e.g. in combination with strategies so that one can compensate loss of popularity due to recommending strategies to the actual benefits of the strategy. Or in a more basic se-up, just to check e.g. if nomination of some irrelevant candidates could be used as a strategy (and indeed in some situations this seemed to be the case in those simulations).

This kind of simplified simulations and simplified models do not give a full picture of what methods are but they are an excellent tool in demonstrating some properties of methods in a way that is not too far from (actually quite close to) what may happen in real life. I think weak and strong candidates are a good and useful approach as long as one remembers that one talks about a simplified model.

Juho



On 6.11.2011, at 23.12, Kathy Dopp wrote:

>> From: Jameson Quinn <jameson.quinn at gmail.com>
>> To: EM <election-methods at lists.electorama.com>
> 
>> Here's a toy model where the math is easy and you can get some interesting
>> results.
>> 
>> -Voters are distributed evenly from [-1, 1] along the ideology dimension.
>> -Candidates are represented by an ordered pair (i,q) where i is an ideology
>> from -1 to 1 and q is a quality from 0 to 2.
> 
> Such a one-dimensional ideology dimension grossly  over-simplifies
> IMO.In reality, people do not line up along a simple one ideology
> dimension.  Political scientists tend to oversimplify, beginning with
> Anthony Downs.  The mathematics could take into account more than one
> issue position or dimension when using spatial geometry to model how
> close voters and candidates are to each other.  It's on my to-do list
> to write up a far more logically coherent way of using spatial
> analysis of positions of voters and candidates that would essentially
> unify much of the field of voting behavior research -- although
> political scientists seem to enjoy carrying on the same debates
> endlessly rather than deriving new theory on what they agree on.
> Condensing reality down to one ideological dimension, even adding one
> quality dimension, grossly distorts the more complex picture of
> reality.  A unidimensional model cannot even accurately model how
> three different persons, say candidates, stand on two different issues
> relative to each other or to voters.  I think Downs basic approach
> makes sense only if his mathematics is repaired to respond to the
> multi-dimensional nature of the real world.
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Kathy Dopp
> http://electionmathematics.org
> Town of Colonie, NY 12304
> "One of the best ways to keep any conversation civil is to support the
> discussion with true facts."
> "Renewable energy is homeland security."
> 
> Fundamentals of Verifiable Elections
> http://kathydopp.com/wordpress/?p=174
> 
> View some of my research on my SSRN Author page:
> http://ssrn.com/author=1451051
> ----
> 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/20111106/fa596c6e/attachment-0004.htm>