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

[Jameson Quinn]

This raises a larger question: should the inventor of a voting method be
able to change the rules without changing the name? Once a proposal is
public, who owns it — the inventor or the public?

I don't think the answer is always clear-cut. If I wanted to redefine 3-2-1
to be something totally different, that wouldn't be OK. If somebody else
wanted to use the name 3-2-1 for something substantially the same, but with
minor rule changes, I might talk or argue with them about whether their
rule changes were a good idea, but I think I'd probably still let them use
the name.

But for smaller rule changes, I think it's OK for the inventor of a method
to make adjustments.

2017-06-10 11:14 GMT-04:00 Jameson Quinn <jameson.quinn at gmail.com>:

> 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/db3ed61b/attachment.htm>