[EM] Voting Benchmark

Kevin Venzke stepjak at yahoo.fr
Wed Sep 30 05:40:46 PDT 2015

Hi Marijn,
I think you might start with the criteria that motivated Schulze, or criteria that differentiate popular methods.
For instance:Schulze: clone independence, monotonicity (mono-raise), Condorcet, SchwartzIRV: clone independence, later-no-harm, later-no-helpApproval: participation, favorite betrayal (FBC)
Unfortunately it's not necessarily straightforward to demonstrate that a new method satisfies or doesn't satisfy some criterion.
Some of us have simulations to attempt to gauge the incentives to use specific strategies (e.g. compromise, truncation, burial). But since simulations are based on the programmer's assumptions, nothing is standardized.
My hunch (based on my own experiments from 10+ years ago) is that if Schulze is your original inspiration or standard, and you make your own rank method, you may make something that gives similar results to Schulze, but most likely it won't satisfy all of Schulze's technical criteria.
      De : Marijn Stollenga <m.stollenga at gmail.com>
 À : "election-methods at lists.electorama.com" <election-methods at lists.electorama.com> 
 Envoyé le : Mercredi 30 septembre 2015 4h12
 Objet : [EM] Voting Benchmark

I am implementing a new election method, after initially playing with 
Schulze voting. In the process I really want to compare my method to 
Schulze and other methods according to several types of quality. Is 
there a good benchmark currently, that I can start from?


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/20150930/197276d0/attachment.htm>

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list