[EM] Countering FairVote propaganda on Wikipedia

[Kristofer Munsterhjelm]

On 2024-03-22 02:49, Closed Limelike Curves wrote:
> These are great suggestions, thank you :)
> 
> For organizing the criteria, my proposal is to replace the current table 
> with maybe 5 numbers:
> 1. Condorcet efficiency
> 2. Social utility efficiency
> 3. Spoiler resistance (IIA compliance)
> 4. Participation satisfaction
> 5. Monotonicity satisfaction
> 
> (Is Jameson Quinn on this email list? I know he had some relevant 
> simulations.)

IIA compliance might be less informative than you'd think, because every 
Condorcet method has the same frequency of IIA failures: you can remove 
a subset of non-winners to change the winner iff there is no Condorcet 
winner. Non-Condorcet ranked methods are worse: they fail when there's a 
cycle, and also whenever they fail to elect the CW.

So perhaps that should be replaced with a category listing, although it 
would be interesting to see the actual IIA failure rate for Range with 
automatic normalization (or above-mean approval strategy). Then again, 
filling in numbers based on simulations from EM might be considered OR; 
I don't know what the burden of proof/reliability rules of Wikipedia 
would say.

Possible categories could be:
	passes IIA (e.g. cardinal with an absolute scale, random pair)
	LIIA (Ranked pairs, River)
	ISDA (Smith//IRV)
	Condorcet (Minmax)
	None of the above (Plurality).

Alternatively having clone independence instead of IIA would be better 
at differentiating between the methods. I would also suggest a strategy 
resistance number, by James Green-Armytage's definition. And summability.

Although if you're doing clone independence, JGA's strategic exit/entry 
might give a better idea of strategic nomination resistance, since some 
nominally clone independent methods have incentive to enter or exit - in 
particular IRV.

Jameson used to be on the list, but he hasn't posted since 2018.

-km