[EM] IMDb top 250 list with PR

[Richard Lung]

The best kept secret in electoral reform is that the General Medical 
Council, in Britain, used to elect all white male GPs First Past The 
Post. Until in 1979, STV proportionally represented women, immigrants 
and specialists, in the National Health Service. (The Best System, by 
The Electoral Reform Society, 1984. Centenary celebration. archive.org )

Hollywood (or whoever) who I believe use RCV (ranked choice voting) 
could apply an At-large RCV proportional count (alias STV/PR). And its 
conventional film categories would "show" likewise proportionally 
represented.

STV would be better than a points system, from the scientific viewpoint 
of the scales of measurement. A points system implies an interval scale 
(with no true zero, like a temperature scale, such as Centigrade).  STV 
implies a more powerful ratio scale. With traditional STV the ratio 
scale only applies to the election count but experience has shown this 
to be sufficiently robust. And there is not much difference between STV 
versions in the results.

Nevertheless, Traditional STV only uses an ordinal scale "last past the 
post" kind exclusion count. Binomial STV uses both a rational election 
count and a rational exclusion count, which is just an iteration, with 
the preferences reversed. However, the fact that Binomial STV gives 
voters the power to exclude, as well as elect candidates, means that it 
should give significantly different, perhaps more comprehensive 
assessments of positive and negative voter attitudes.

Regards,

Richard Lung.


On 11/02/2023 21:27, Toby Pereira wrote:
> I've long thought that the IMDb top 250 list 
> https://www.imdb.com/search/title/?groups=top_250&sort=user_rating 
> would be more interesting if it was done using a sequential PR method. 
> That way you would likely get more of people's absolute favourite 
> films rather than those with broad appeal, but which might not be 
> right at the top of people's lists. You're more likely to see 
> differents genres represented etc.
>
> Anyway, not that it will do anything, but I Tweeted at them today with 
> my suggestion here: 
> https://twitter.com/toby_pereira/status/1624513669332717569
>
> By the way, I definitely think that Sequential proportional score 
> voting 
> https://electowiki.org/wiki/Sequential_proportional_score_voting (also 
> known as SPAV + KP) is the best method for this. When you're electing 
> an essentially unlimited number of items in a sequential manner, you 
> do not want to be messing about with quotas etc. A Thiele method is 
> ideal for this, and as it's for scores (well stars), I consider this 
> to be the best version as it passes multiplicative and additive scale 
> invariance, which other methods do not. IMDb uses a 1 to 10 star 
> scale, and if 1 was subtracted from every score to make it 0 to 9, 
> then the results under Sequential proportional score voting would be 
> identical.
>
> I don't generally use Twitter, but feel free to engage with the Tweet 
> to like retweet etc. so it can gain more traction (if you agree with 
> it obviously).
>
> I know that this is a more "trivial" matter than is normally 
> discussed, but I see it as a demonstration that electoral methods have 
> uses outside of elections for public office.
>
> Toby
>
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - seehttps://electorama.com/em  for list info
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20230213/ba4bdb6a/attachment.htm>