[EM] Consensus and PR methods
Stéphane Rouillon
stephane.rouillon at sympatico.ca
Thu Mar 8 11:21:56 PST 2018
Sorry: "crutch option"
Envoyé de mon iPhone
> Le 8 mars 2018 à 14:14, Stéphane Rouillon <stephane.rouillon at sympatico.ca> a écrit :
>
> Exactly the conclusion I reached when I designed the crurch option for SPPA...!
>
>> Harmful equilibria are stable with 2 parties; never stable for long with 3 or more.
>
> And SPPA allows transfer between political parties by rallying.
>
> Envoyé de mon iPhone
>
>> Le 8 mars 2018 à 11:46, Jameson Quinn <jameson.quinn at gmail.com> a écrit :
>>
>> Few, but more than 2. Harmful equilibria are stable with 2 parties; never stable for long with 3 or more.
>>
>> And those who don't like any of the viable options (whether there are 2 or 3 or 10) should be able to vote in a way that reflects that, without necessarily having their votes ignored. That means any good voting method should allow cross-party voting and/or transfers somehow.
>>
>> 2018-03-07 21:44 GMT-05:00 Jack Santucci <jms346 at georgetown.edu>:
>>> Political scientists like their parties to be few and disciplined. This is said to promote accountability.
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>>> On Mar 7, 2018, at 20:11, Richard Lung <voting at ukscientists.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If my old memory serves me tolerably well, isn't this paper something like an article entitled The Best of Both Worlds, where the authors did a survey of a tendency for European electoral systems, over the decades, to have decreased their average magnitude. I forget the details, just about everything actually. But it may have gone something like: the constiuencies shrank and the thresholds got higher.
>>>> It was an informative statistical survey.
>>>> But I think it went awry on what academics are fond of calling "normative" considerations. Or on the stricture of David Hume, that what is, is not necessarily right.
>>>> I would have put to the authors, as a critic. That was this trend, they so diligently exposed, but the moving to a "sweet spot" for political incumbents, with precious little to do with democracy and effective elections for the voters?
>>>>
>>>> from
>>>> Richard Lung.
>>>>
>>>>> On 07/03/2018 19:19, Jack Santucci wrote:
>>>>> Consensus in academia? Maybe that cigarettes cause cancer. Maybe.
>>>>>
>>>>> I jest.
>>>>>
>>>>> This paper may be helpful: http://personal.lse.ac.uk/hix/Working_Papers/Carey-Hix-AJPS2011.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 2:14 PM, Richard Lung <voting at ukscientists.com> wrote:
>>>>>> So, the academic world has no consensus or standard model of election method?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 03/03/2018 19:57, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
>>>>>>> Say we have a consensus method M that works by choosing the council C that minimizes the maximum penalty p(C, v) for the voter that maximizes this penalty. That is, the method finds C according to
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> C = arg min max p(c, v)
>>>>>>> c v
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> where ties are broken in a leximax fashion (i.e. considering next to max, then next to next to max and so on). Furthermore let the penalty "nonnegative" in the sense that any voter with a real preference has at least as great a penalty as a voter with no preference (the zero voter, as it were).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now let the modified consensus method M' be one that has the same optimization objective, but the method is permitted to remove a Droop quota of votes to help minimize the penalty.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So M says "what council displeases the most displeased voter the least?", while M' says "what council displeases the most displeased voter the least, if we can discard a Droop quota of voters from consideration?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then, are there any properties for p that makes M' satisfy Droop proportionality? Can we in general turn consensus methods of this form into PR methods by adding a "you can discard a Droop quota" rule?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If we can, then we easily get a multiwinner version of Bucklin/MJ by doing the following:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let g(c, v) be the grade voter v gives to the least preferred candidate in c.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let the consensus method M be
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> C = arg max min g(c, v)
>>>>>>> c v
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let M' permit the method to remove a Droop quota, i.e. if |V| is the number of voters, and V is the set of voters itself:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> C' = arg max c:
>>>>>>> max x subset of V so that |x| = |V|/(seats+1):
>>>>>>> min v in V \ x:
>>>>>>> g(c, v)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For a single-winner election, M' is (up to tiebreaker) just MJ, because for each potential winner c, the removal step will remove the voters who grade c the worst, and the Droop quota for single-winner is a majority. Then the voter grading the c the worst after half of the voters have been removed is just the median voter.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Some thoughts about two-winner remove-voter minimax Approval follow. Reasoning about what voter removal actually does can get kinda hairy, thus I may very well be wrong:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In minimax Approval, p(c, v) is the Hamming distance between c and voter v's ballot, i.e. the number of candidates in c but not approved by v plus the number of candidates approved by v not in c.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Say we have an analogous Droop criterion for Approval: if more than k Droop quotas approve of a set of j candidates (and nobody else), then at least min(k, j) of these must be elected.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For two winners, there are these possibilities:
>>>>>>> 1. no Droop constraints
>>>>>>> 2. k = 2, j >= 2
>>>>>>> 3. k = 2, j = 1
>>>>>>> 4. k = 1, j >= 1
>>>>>>> 5. k = 1, j = 1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. is no problem, because we can elect anyone we want without running afoul of the Approval DPC.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. Since there can only be three Droop quotas in total, when we're considering A = {C_1, C_2} with C_1 and C_2 in the set of j candidates (call it J), we can eliminate all but the J-voters and the maximum penalty is j-2.
>>>>>>> In contrast, for some B = {C_x, C_y} not a subset of j, the best it can do is eliminate a Droop quota of the J-voters. In the best case (for B), everybody but the J-voters approve of B alone. But there still remains a Droop quota (plus one voter) of the J-voters, and each of them gives penalty j. So A is preferred to B.
>>>>>>> If B = {C_1, C_x}, then even if everybody but the J-voters approve of B alone, the J-voters give penalty j-1. So A is still preferred to B.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3. Same as in 2, but let A = {C_1, C_x}, J = {C_1}. With A, we eliminate so that only the J-voters are left, and then max penalty is 1 (for C_x). Furthermore, every remaining voter gives penalty 1. Let B = {C_x, C_y}. In the best case for B, a Droop quota of J-voters are eliminated and we have a Droop quota plus one left. These all give penalty 2, which is worse than penalty 1. So A is preferred to B.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 5. Let A = {C_1, C_x} and B = {C_x, C_y}. In the best case for B here, two Droop quotas minus a voter approve only of B, and the remaining Droop quota plus one voter approves of J = {C_1}. Eliminating all but one of the J-voters gives a max penalty of 3 from that one J-voter: one point for not having C_1, and two points for having C_x and C_y. A eliminates one of the two B-approving Droop quotas and gets a penalty of 1 from every remaining voter, which is better.
>>>>>>> Note that I assume that C_x is approved by the B-voters. If that were not the case, then {C_x, C_y} would already be beaten by some {C_z, C_y} where C_z is. Note also that I don't consider the case where the B-voters also approve of a whole load of other candidates, with the idea of raising the penalty under A. The problem is that because only two candidates can be elected, this would also raise their penalty under B.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 4. Let A = {C_1, C_x} and B = {C_x, C_y}. The best case for B has worst penalty j+2, since after a Droop quota of J-voters have been eliminated, there remains a single voter who only approves of J. After eliminating some of the B-voters, A gets penalty j from the J-voters (j-1 for the members of J not part of {C_1, C_x} and one more for C_x which is not approved by them), and one penalty point from the B-voters.
>>>>>>> Here it'd seem that adding loads of candidates to the B-voters would make things hard. Can it be salvaged?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Suppose there are J-voters and C-voters. B is a subset of C.
>>>>>>> When considering outcome B, before excluding a Droop quota, every J-voter gives a penalty of j+2 and every C-voter gives a penalty of c-2 where c=|C|.
>>>>>>> Under outcome A, before excluding, every J-voter gives j, and every B-voter gives c (-1 for having C_x, +1 for having C_1).
>>>>>>> If j+2 > c, then we're in the domain above, and no problem.
>>>>>>> If c > j+2, then the excluded candidates under both A and B are C-voters.
>>>>>>> So under B we have a Droop quota of C-voters with penalty c-2, and a Droop quota plus one of J-voters at j+2.
>>>>>>> Under A we have a Droop quota of C-voters with penalty c, and a Droop quota plus one of J-voters at j.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So unless I made a mistake, Hamming distance is not good enough. But I might have made a mistake, because it seems strange that even in ordinary minimax Approval, a coalition can increase its power by approving a lot of clones. E.g. suppose in ordinary minimax Approval that there are two coalitions of almost equal size:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> n+1: A B
>>>>>>> n: C1 C2 C3 ... Cq
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> {A, B} gets worst penalty q+2 (there are n of these and n+1 zeroes)
>>>>>>> {A, C1} gets worst penalty q (n voters like C1 but not A)
>>>>>>> {C1, C2} gets worst penalty q-2 (n voters give this penalty, and then n+1 give penalty 4).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ... does that mean an arbitrarily small minority can force its own council to win by just approving enough clones that they set the worst penalty in every outcome? That feels rather wrong.
>>>>>>> ----
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----
>>>>>> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Jack Santucci, Ph.D.
>>>>> Independent scholar
>>>>> http://www.jacksantucci.com
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Virus-free. www.avast.com
>>>
>>> ----
>>> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
>>>
>>
>> ----
>> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
> ----
> 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/20180308/add60fff/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list