[EM] Participation Criteria and Bucklin - perhaps they *can* work together after all?

Jameson Quinn jameson.quinn at gmail.com
Mon Jun 17 09:15:12 PDT 2013

2013/6/17 Benjamin Grant <benn at 4efix.com>

> It occurred to me that the reason we are failing the Participation
> Criteria with Bucklin in the below example:****
> ** **
> 49: X:1st   Y:4th****
> 50: X:5th   Y:4th****
> Y wins.****
> ** **
> Now we add two votes:****
> 2: X:3rd   Y:2nd****
> X wins.****
> ** **
> is because we are letting people skip grades/places.  Or to put another
> way, if we asked the voters under Bucklin to fill out each ballot more
> strictly, ranking 1st through Nth where there are N candidates – I know
> that several do not like this approach, **but** my question is this –
> does **strictly ranked** Bucklin fail Participation??

Yes. Just add 500 other candidates, and fill in the gaps with
randomly-selected candidates from the 500. Obviously, you could probably
get by with a lot less than 500 — at a rough guess, I'd expect that 8 would
be plenty without changing the numbers here, and probably around 4-6 would
be enough to make a similar example with smaller gaps work, but my point is
that with enough extra candidates who cluster at the bottom of most
ballots, you can turn any rated scenario into a ranked scenario.

You are being tempted by a mirage here. The first lesson of "voting school
kindergarten" is that most problems don't have a perfect solution. That
doesn't mean you stop looking for ways to improve things, but it does mean
that when you imagine a "fix", you do your best to shoot holes in your own
idea. 95% of the time you'll succeed, but the other 5% still makes it worth

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20130617/166810b3/attachment-0004.htm>

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list