[EM] RCV Challenge

Forest Simmons forest.simmons21 at gmail.com
Fri Dec 24 14:43:40 PST 2021

Thanks for pointing that out, Richard!

El vie., 24 de dic. de 2021 11:29 a. m., Richard Lung <
voting at ukscientists.com> escribió:

> Dear Forest Simmons and group,
> The method does not have to be deterministic. Physics is no longer
> deterministic. Why has election method to be? (My method isn't.)
> Also RCV has forgotten what Hoag and Hallett knew. H & H are a much better
> base of understanding than RCV.  -- Cambridge in particular rather than
> Massachusetts generally should be our starting point.
> RCV are in fashion, I don't decry what they are achieving reform-wise. But
> research-wise, their movement leaves much to be desired.
> Richard Lung.
> On 24 Dec 2021, at 12:08 am, Forest Simmons <forest.simmons21 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> Despite our best efforts, I'm not sure that we've yet seen or heard the
> best possible deterministic, Ranked Choice Voting proposals.
> In my next message I will submit the best public proposal that I can think
> of in that category (the category of Universal Domain ... i.e. based purely
> on Ranked Choice/Preference information ... equal rankings and truncations
> allowed). Of course, anybody can easily improve on any such method by
> coloring outside of the UD lines ... for example by use of explicit
> approval cutoffs, scores, grades, judgments, virtual candidates, and other
> devices for stratifying rank relations by relative importance/strength, as
> well as probabilities, random ballot drawings, etc.
> But let's temporarily put aside all of these power tools and see what we
> can accomplish with screwdriver, pliers, etc.
> The challenge is to make the method as simple as possible while complying
> with clone independence, monotonicity, and the other most basic criteria
> like Pareto, anonymity, neutrality, majority, etc.
> Simplicity is in the eye of the beholder ... hard to pin down, but you
> know it when you see it.... definitely not just a bunch of ad hoc rules
> cobbled together to patch up an out moded second rate method from
> yesteryear. The fewer seams, the better.
> Simplicity includes simplicity of data summary, simplicity of computation,
> simplicity of formulation/description, etc.
> One antonym of simplicity is complexity ... complexity of the basic
> idea/heuristic, logical complexity, computational complexity, etc.
> I look forward to seeing some of your favorite methods ... original or
> not.  And don't worry if they do not completely comply with the ideal
> criteria I outlined above ... a really good, intuitively appealing, simple
> idea can be forgiven a small transgression or two .... and could become the
> germ for an even better method.
> I put simplicity ahead of familiarity because a simple idea can easily
> become familiar, so lack of familiarity is a temporary problem caused by a
> history of poor attention to civics education.
> This challenge is an opportunity for you to take one small step to help
> remedy that educational deficiency!
> Thanks!
> -Forest
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
> info
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20211224/c013f01f/attachment.html>

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list