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

[Toby Pereira]

Minor changes can be seen as variants of the same method. For example, someone might define a Condorcet method using margins, and someone else might prefer the winning votes version. But you wouldn't give it a different name. You'd call it x with winning votes. But then I suppose that doesn't answer the question of whether the inventor or anyone else can change the "canonical" version - the version where you don't have to specify anything else about it.


      From: Jameson Quinn <jameson.quinn at gmail.com>
 To: electionsciencefoundation <electionscience at googlegroups.com>; EM <election-methods at lists.electorama.com> 
 Sent: Saturday, 10 June 2017, 17:04
 Subject: Re: [EM] Updates on 3-2-1 and GOLD (minor rule adjustments)
   
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 and 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.

----
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/20170610/dc035cc1/attachment.htm>