[EM] Single-winner method used for multiple-winner elections; Wikipedia's election-method mistake

[Richard Fobes]

On 9/30/2012 4:56 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
 > On 09/30/2012 08:16 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
 >
 >> i dunno exactly how they do their ordering at Wikipedia (to get 2nd, 3rd
 >> place winners using Schulze), but would you say if the Condorcet
 >> criterion was met for each subset, would it be unfair to just identify
 >> the top CW, then kick him/her out of the set of candidates and do it
 >> again to identify the CW in the remaining set? it seems logical to me to
 >> say that after the top CW is removed from the candidate set, that if a
 >> CW exists in the remaining set, wouldn't that be fair to call the
 >> "2nd-most popular" candidate?
 >
 > The problem with this is that it amplifies a (bare) majority into
 > unanimity. ...

Kristofer's sentence above nicely explains why it's unfair to use a 
single-winner method for multiple-winner results.  I'll add another 
simple perspective.

After a 51% majority elects their most popular choice, should the 
ballots of the 49% be ignored when choosing the second-seat winner.  Of 
course not.

A well-designed multiple-winner method takes the ballots of that 49% 
into account.  In such methods, including STV, the ballots that elected 
the first winner are in some way given reduced influence when the second 
choice is determined.

The fact that Wikimedia makes this mistake yields results that I 
interpret (from experiences, not numbers) as the editors now being in 
the majority, and the subject-matter experts are now in the minority. 
The result, as Kristofer says, is an amplification of that majority.

The secondary effect is that subject-matter experts have to deal with 
increasing requests from Wikipedia editors for more inline citations.

I wish I had time to write a Democracy Chronicles article about 
Wikipedia's woes being related to their choice of election method, but 
participants here would assume I'm putting down the Condorcet-Shultze 
method, even though I'm not.  I just wish they would use it correctly. 
Of course that brings up the question of what they should be using to 
fill the remaining seats, and I am biased.  Obviously I favor VoteFair 
representation ranking.  The other good alternative would be Schultze-STV.

Later when I have time to write a longer post I'll update my position 
about Jameson's peer-review publication idea, which, if enough people 
participate in helping out with (which in turn requires that it be 
well-designed), would solve Wikipedia's dysfunctionality regarding 
voting-method articles.

Richard Fobes