[EM] Truncation (was re: Defeat Strength)

[Forest Simmons]

On Wed, Sep 14, 2022, 12:49 PM Forest Simmons <forest.simmons21 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> The approval eliminatiion method would have the same complexity as IRV,
> since the current approval cutoff on a ballot can change at any step, just
> like the current first choice can change at any step in IRV.
>
> In fact IRV is precisely ranked-rankings elimination where all of the
> ballots are (by fiat) of the form ...
>
> A>>>>B>>>C>>D>E
>

Similarly, Coombs' method can be formulated as Ranked-Rankings Elimination
by specifying all ballots to be of the type

A>B>>C>>>D>>>>E ...

>
> So why not give the voters a little credit or (as Steve Brams calls it)
> "voter sovereignty", by letting them prioritize their own rankings.
>
> -Forest
>
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2022, 12:36 AM Juho Laatu <juho.laatu at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In addition to that, I still have some interest in the ranked rankings
>> style votes (A>>B>C) where one preference step is considered more important
>> than another step (forming a tree of preferences or something like that). I
>> have not done my homework on this (been lazy for the last decade). Do you
>> know if that approach would likely suffer from some (strategic voting or
>> vote counting complexity related) problems that would make it unusable?
>>
>> Juho
>>
>>
>> > On 12. Sep 2022, at 12.39, Kristofer Munsterhjelm <km_elmet at t-online.de>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > On 9/11/22 16:31, Juho Laatu wrote:
>> >> It is an interesting theoretical area of study to see what kind of
>> >> additional information we could use (up to free form algorithms), but
>> >> for large competitive single winner elections with independent voters
>> >> the basic approach of ranking + "equal last" seems to be a stable
>> basis.
>> >> (Different strength preferences (A>>B>C) might be useful somewhere - or
>> >> seriously - maybe not really :-) .)
>> >
>> > I would probably say that we can define honesty for ranked ballots and
>> for von Neumann-Morgenstern utilities, but anything beyond that and it gets
>> really hard. And if we can't define honesty, then methods can get away with
>> externalizing their burden on the voters the way Range does.
>> >
>> > As for different strength prefereces, it feels kind of like "neither
>> this nor that". I'd rather have an automatically normalized rated ballot
>> (if utilities are important) or MJ-style grades or plain rankings (if not).
>> >
>> > (Personally, I'd imagine what voters can reliably answer lies somewhere
>> between rankings and vNM utilities. Just where, I don't know, though.)
>> >
>> > -km
>>
>> ----
>> 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/20220914/0bfd04a5/attachment-0001.htm>