[EM] Example with most different results

[Richard Lung]

The more interesting question is what makes voting systems agree when so 
many of them can be made to disagree (and why?)

The answer I found for a single vacancy was that an ordinal count is 
less  accurate than a rational count, and the disagreement in results 
was merely caused by discrepancies in ordinal counts. This was shown by 
changing the unweighted Condorcet count to a weighted Condorcet count, 
whereupon it agreed with the only other rational count (Borda method), 
in a finely balanced vote.

Therefore, I concluded that such alleged demonstrations that there is 
"no perfect voting system" were an imposition on readers.

For that matter, no scientific (or knowledgable) endeavor ever claims 
perfection, but to seek unambiguous results, that could not mean 
anything one wants.

Moreover single vacancies may not offer more than half a democracy. 
(Known in ancient times as a tyranny.) With more seats per constituency, 
in a proportional election, the inaccurate "last past the post" 
exclusion count becomes less important. (As well as being unnecessary.)

Regards,

Richard Lung


On 25/05/2024 11:35, Abel Stan wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I have a challenge for all: I need a unified example where the most 
> possible voting systems lead to different results. I know it might be 
> easy to construct such a scenario with any number of runoffs and such, 
> but that would not be in the spirit of the game. This is the best I 
> came up with so far, 8 different winners, including a Condorcet-winner 
> + 1 who could win under a dictatorship (or a 4 round system).
>
> 1000:Plurality>Bucklin>Coombs>IRV>Anti>Borda>Runoff>Condorcet>Dictator
> 999:Runoff>Condorcet>Bucklin>Anti>Dictator>Coombs>IRV>Borda>Plurality
> 998:IRV>Condorcet>Borda>Coombs>Anti>Dictator>Plurality>Bucklin>Runoff
> 997:Coombs>Borda>Bucklin>Anti>Dictator>Runoff>Plurality>Condorcet>IRV
> 996:Dictator>IRV>Condorcet>Coombs>Anti>Runoff>Plurality>Bucklin>Borda
> 995:Borda>Bucklin>Anti>Dictator>Coombs>IRV>Runoff>Plurality>Condorcet
> 994:Anti>Condorcet>Borda>IRV>Coombs>Dictator>Runoff>Plurality>Bucklin
> 993:Condorcet>IRV>Borda>Dictator>Runoff>Plurality>Anti>Bucklin>Coombs
> 992:Bucklin>Borda>Dictator>Condorcet>Coombs>IRV>Runoff>Plurality>Anti
>
>
> And one without a Condorcet-winner, 9 different result with 9 candidates:
>
> 1000:Plurality>Bucklin>Coombs>IRV>Anti>Kemeny>Runoff>Schulze>Borda
> 999:Runoff>Schulze>Bucklin>Borda>Anti>Coombs>IRV>Kemeny>Plurality
> 998:IRV>Schulze>Coombs>Kemeny>Borda>Anti>Plurality>Bucklin>Runoff
> 997:Coombs>Kemeny>Bucklin>Borda>Anti>Runoff>Plurality>Schulze>IRV
> 996:Borda>IRV>Schulze>Coombs>Anti>Runoff>Plurality>Bucklin>Kemeny
> 995:Kemeny>Bucklin>Borda>Anti>Coombs>IRV>Runoff>Plurality>Schulze
> 994:Anti>Kemeny>Schulze>IRV>Coombs>Borda>Runoff>Plurality>Bucklin
> 993:Schulze>IRV>Borda>Kemeny>Runoff>Plurality>Anti>Bucklin>Coombs
> 992:Bucklin>Kemeny>Borda>Schulze>Coombs>IRV>Runoff>Plurality>Anti
>
>
> Wonder what's the highest we could get to.
> Cheers,
>
> ----
> 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/20240525/bb85aae6/attachment.htm>