[EM] Tideman data results

[John]

Well then.

https://github.com/jrmoserbaltimore/libdemocrav/blob/refactor/UnitTests/resources/testcases/HistoricElections.simpletabulatortest


"smith set" is the smith set.

"schwartz set" is valid when the smith set and schwartz set differ.

When the smith or schwartz set are 1, a tabulator can test itself as
"condorcet-smith" or "condorcet-schwartz"

Other valid types of results are "tideman's alternative" (if schwartz = 1,
elect; else eliminate non-smith, runoff 1, repeat); "tideman's alternative
smith" (elects by smith set = 1); "tideman's alternative schwartz"
(schwartz set elimination); and "meek-stv".

This is an extremly basic outcome format.  The json format.. I can't parse
yet.

On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 1:34 PM John <john.r.moser at gmail.com> wrote:

> [Not subscribed; please CC me on responses.]
>
> Does anyone have Smith Set, Schwartz Set, IRV, and STV (2, 3, 4, 5, etc.)
> results for the HIL files here:
>
> https://rangevoting.org/TidemanData.html
>
> I get the following for A1 with Meek-STV (precision = 9, seats = 3):
>
> Tabulation completion data:
>   0.0000000000 Candidate  2 defeated
>   156.7058824400000000000 Candidate  9 elected
>   0.0000000000 Candidate  7 defeated
>   135.9776274220000000000 Candidate  1 elected
>   0.0000000000 Candidate  5 defeated
>   0.0000000000 Candidate  6 defeated
>   0.0000000000 Candidate  8 defeated
>   131.1851762120000000000 Candidate  3 elected
>   0.0000000000 Candidate  4 defeated
>   0.0000000000 Candidate 10 defeated
>   Notes:
>
> The next step is to follow the debugger step by step and straighten out
> the logic (it gives an odd report with 2 candidates), and then clean up the
> remaining refactoring artifacts (the constructor for a tabulator has number
> of seats as an argument—so does the Tabulate() call).
>
> Right now, the tabulator computes IRV (broken by vote splitting, not
> recommended), Tideman's Alternative (recommended), and Meek-STV
> (recommended).  It does not compute:
>
>  - MNTV (non-representative, not recommended)
>  - Approval (non-representative, inherently tactical and
> voter-risk-behavior based, not recommended)
>  - Range voting methods (subject to an amplification of the Approval
> voting problem, but can be computed as ranked by flattening)
>  - Plurality (broken by vote splitting, not recommended)
>  - STV rules without surplus pass-through (broken by Woodall free riding,
> not recommended)
>  - Schulze STV (resists Hylland free riding, recommended)
>
> Code is available here:  https://github.com/jrmoserbaltimore/libdemocrav
>
> This is pre-alpha work.
>
> Thanks in advance.
> —John
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20190516/170fe7bd/attachment-0001.html>