[EM] [CES #15255] Re: PAR: nearly-equivalent rules

[Jameson Quinn]

2016-11-12 17:45 GMT-05:00 Neal McBurnett <nealmcb at gmail.com>:

> I haven't been paying that much attention.  But this definition doesn't
> define what this means "a rival is explicitly rejected".  Is "rejected" the
> opposite of "viable"?  Or does it mean that no other voter cast any
> "reject" vote for any other candidate?  Or ???
>

If candidates are ABCD, a ballot that prefers A and leaves the rest blank
counts as rejecting BCD, but one that prefers A and rejects B and leaves
the rest blank counts as accepting CD.



> So if I have an "accept" on a ballot that doesn't "prefer" the leader,
> that means 0 points?
> Since votes depend on how other votes are interpreted and who the leader
> is, is the tally guaranteed to be attracted to a single stable equilibrium
> tally?
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Neal
>
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 05:27:53PM -0500, Jameson Quinn wrote:
> > I think this is the best phrasing I've come up with so far for PAR. I
> think it's not exactly equivalent to the definitions I've
> > given before, but it is close enough to meet all the same properties and
> give the same result in any basic scenario type.
> >
> > Prefer Accept Reject (PAR) voting works as follows:
> >
> >  1. Voters can Prefer, Accept, or Reject each candidate. Blanks count as
> "Reject" if no rival is explicitly rejected; otherwise,
> >     blank is "Accept".
> >  2. Candidates with at least 25% Prefer, and no more than 50% reject,
> are "viable". The most-preferred viable candidate (if any) is
> >     the leader.
> >  3. Each "prefer" is worth 1 point. For viable candidates, each "accept"
> on a ballot which doesn't prefer the leader is also worth
> >     1 point. Most points wins.
> >
> >
> > 2016-11-12 13:47 GMT-05:00 Jameson Quinn <jameson.quinn at gmail.com>:
> >
> >     Thinking about PAR and the electoral college, I realized that there
> is a different way to state the PAR rules:
> >
> >      1. Voters can Prefer, Accept, or Reject each candidate. Default is
> "Reject" for voters who do not explicitly reject any
> >         candidates, and "Accept" otherwise.
> >      2. A candidate is "viable" if they are rejected by under 50%.
> >      3. Each ballot gives 1 point to each candidate it prefers. Ballots
> which prefer no viable candidates also give 1 point to each
> >         candidate they accept, so long as that candidate is preferred by
> at least 25%.
> >      4. Now find the viable candidate with the most points, if any, and
> redo step 3 from scratch as if only that candidate were
> >         viable.
> >      5. The winner is the candidate with the most points.
> >
> >     This could potentially differ from PAR in that it waits slightly
> longer to "reveal" the preferences of candidates with under
> >     25% preferences. In practice, I doubt this would typically make any
> difference.
> >
> >     The procedure above is more complicated than PAR's, but the
> advantage is that it produces counts which include the disqualified
> >     candidates, and thus is suitable for combining with totals from
> non-PAR systems such as approval, plurality, or
> >     "pre-elimination totals" from IRV.
> >
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "The Center for Election Science" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to electionscience+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20161112/192f1819/attachment.htm>