[EM] Voting method comparison tables

[Richard Lung]

Your table doen't come out in my browser. The Wikipedia comparison page 
justifies the belief that election science has followed economics as the 
dismal science. Where wealth and power are concerned, thought flounders.
It is not just that a classification is less potent than a 
transformation, which is to say, for example, that Linnaeus preceded 
Darwin. The elections classification itself is incoherent, being based 
on arbitrary criteria, rather than the necessary attributes of all 
elections and their extent of development.

from
Richard Lung.


On 14/07/2017 13:17, Jameson Quinn wrote:
> I've made two voting method comparison tables 
> <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bNu4eFc1DC-IzJQt9qbyGVay85l5vwTmehXWXiZNVE4/edit#gid=90844263> 
> --- for multi-winner and single-winner methods. Unlike the "comparison 
> of electoral systems 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_electoral_systems>" table 
> on wikipedia, these are meant to focus on political practice more than 
> theory. Thus, in terms of methods, I leave out some possibilities if 
> they're redundant (eg, only one Condorcet method), overcomplicated, or 
> unlikely to be used in politics (eg, Borda). And in terms of the 
> aspects I compare methods on, I try to include practical 
> considerations rather than just abstract criteria. For instance, 
> "simplicity" is one aspect, and instead of "later no harm" I have 
> "chicken dilemma".
>
> There are 4 tabs in the sheet: emoticon and numeric versions of the 
> table for multi-winner and single-winner methods. In a few places the 
> emoticons and the numbers don't exactly correspond; I consider the 
> numbers to be the latest version. The methods in the left section are 
> the ones I think are discussed as reform proposals the most; the ones 
> on the right are interesting but IMO less-likely to be implemented in 
> English-speaking countries. In between the two sections is a column 
> which briefly explains what I meant by the aspect.
>
> If you consider the various aspects as voters and the methods as 
> candidates, the winning methods (under basically any method used as 
> the "meta method") are 3-2-1 for single-winner, and GOLD for 
> multi-winner. It is, of course, not a coincidence that a table I made 
> ends up favoring two methods I've designed. But I don't think this is 
> because the table is biased; I think my ratings are pretty much fair 
> and objective. Rather, it's because the aspects on this table are the 
> aspects I care about, and so when I designed those two methods, I 
> deliberately optimized them on these aspects. In other words, it's the 
> methods which are biased to actually /be/ good, not the table which is 
> biased to falsely rate them as good.
>
> Of course, plurality/FPTP is the loser on both tables. Another thing 
> worth noting is how poorly IRV does among single-winner methods. As 
> compared to FPTP, it gives just 1/6 of the benefits that 3-2-1 would. 
> I find that ratio plausible.
>
> Still, I understand that other people here will view this table with 
> some skepticism, and will have plenty of points to debate. I welcome 
> that discussion; that's why I'm posting it here.
>
>
>
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info


-- 
Richard Lung.
http://www.voting.ukscientists.com
Democracy Science series 3 free e-books in pdf:
https://plus.google.com/106191200795605365085
E-books in epub format:
https://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/democracyscience


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20170716/b43de1f0/attachment.htm>