[EM] Updates on 3-2-1 and GOLD (minor rule adjustments)

[Jameson Quinn]

Since creating 3-2-1 voting <http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/3-2-1_voting>
and GOLD voting
<http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/Geographic_Open_List/Delegated_(GOLD)_voting>,
I've continued to work on refining the rules. I'm arbitrarily deciding that
it's time to send an update now, because they're getting pretty stable.
Future changes are still possible, but I think that on each system the
chances are better than even that the only changes from here on will be
simplifying the wording, not substantive differences.

On 3-2-1, here are the rules in addition to the basic "3 most good, 2 least
bad, 1 more preferred" dynamic:

   - Optional delegation: if you vote just one candidate as "good", any
   blank ratings you leave will be filled in by that candidate's predeclared
   ratings. Predeclarations default to "bad".
   - 3rd semifinalist: the third semifinalist must...
      - ...not be of the same party as the first two semifinalists (if
      there are party labels). If this would happen, just skip to the next
      highest "good" as the third semifinalist.
         - This means a party can't win by running 3 clones against a
         divided field. There could still in theory be "clone
parties", but it seems
         unlikely that over 1/3 of voters would go along with such naked
         strategizing.
      - ...have at least half as many "good" ratings as the top
      semifinalist. If this would happen, just take the top two as finalists,
      skipping the second "2 least bad" round.
         - This ensures that you can't win just by being a "stealth
         centrist" with little direct support.

On GOLD, here are the changes from the original version:

   - Pre-eliminations
      - The top candidate in each riding, based on local votes alone, is
      never eliminated.
      - The second candidate in each riding, counting local votes only, is
      eliminated only if their local votes are fewer than half those of the top.
      - Others are eliminated by default, surviving only if their local
      votes are more than half those of the top AND their total direct votes
      (including non-local write-ins) are more than those of the top local
      candidate. (For this rule, "top" is counted by local votes only,
but "those
      of" includes non-local votes.)
   - STV elimination order: eliminate in order of who's furthest behind in
   their riding
      - If a candidate's current full tally is 1000 votes (including
      everything: local votes, direct write-ins, and transferred
votes), and the
      top full tally of any remaining candidate in their riding is 2000, then
      they are 1000 behind in their riding.

These rule adjustments for GOLD work to ensure that the voters within a
riding have a significant say in who represents them, and out-of-riding
votes matter only at the margin.

I've also been thinking about rule adjustments for 3RD (the nonpartisan
proportional system that's a cross between 321 and GOLD). That was part of
why I started the other thread on proportional summability. But I'm not
really satisfied that that system is "done" at the level of 321 and GOLD,
so I'm not going to talk about the current version of those rules here.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20170610/2fb151aa/attachment-0001.htm>