<html><head></head><body><div class="ydpe982185cyahoo-style-wrap" style="font-family:Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;"><div></div>
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">I also like proportional representation, but there are many different elections for many different things, and there will always be a need for single-winner methods. Because of that I'm not sure it's necessary to make the same point in every discussion about single-winner methods, especially specific discussions about solving specific problems (e.g. burial) rather than more general discussions.</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">Toby</div><div><br></div>
</div><div id="ydp7c69d6eyahoo_quoted_7702962143" class="ydp7c69d6eyahoo_quoted">
<div style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:#26282a;">
<div>
On Friday, 13 October 2023 at 19:18:06 BST, Richard Lung <voting@ukscientists.com> wrote:
</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><div id="ydp7c69d6eyiv6777086580"><div>
<p><br clear="none">
</p>
<p>"Cycles" (in the paper-scissors-rock sense) are a problem of the
(under-candidated) single member systems own making. They rapidly
disappear with a representative sample of candidates
proportionally elected to large constituencies. The problem is not
the 'pesky' cycles, it is the pesky single member system. Unless
the politics in political science is to dictate to the science, it
is up to academics to point out, as hundreds of American political
scientists have, in conjunction with The New York Times, I
believe, this requirement of a quota-preferential method.</p>
<p>Remedies to the single member system are cosmetic. They cannot
possibly please more than half the population, whatever you do --
and probably a good deal less. UK monopolistic elections are a
minorocracy not a democracy, and that is probably a fair
indication of the US state of affairs.<br clear="none">
</p>
<p>Time to move on from the ancient Greek conception of democracy,
as to elect a tyrant, unconditionally -- making Britain what
Hailsham called an "elective dictatorship." Which shares some of
the all too evident failings of any dictatorship, elected or
otherwise. This should be a spur to avoid another Vietnam war or
second Iraq war, which even W. may deplore, in his heart.<br clear="none">
</p>
<p>Regards,</p>
<p>Richard Lung.<br clear="none">
</p>
<p><br clear="none">
</p>
<div id="ydp7c69d6eyiv6777086580yqt79040" class="ydp7c69d6eyiv6777086580yqt8789344907"><div class="ydp7c69d6eyiv6777086580moz-cite-prefix">On 13/10/2023 18:11, Forest Simmons
wrote:<br clear="none">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>Dear EM List Friends,
<div><br clear="none">
</div>
<div>We need your feedback on this draft of a
proposal before we submit a version of it to the voting
reform community at large.</div>
<br clear="none">
<div class="ydp7c69d6eyiv6777086580gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="ydp7c69d6eyiv6777086580gmail_attr">---------- Forwarded
message ---------<br clear="none">
From: <strong class="ydp7c69d6eyiv6777086580gmail_sendername">Forest
Simmons</strong> <span><<a shape="rect" href="mailto:forest.simmons21@gmail.com" class="ydp7c69d6eyiv6777086580moz-txt-link-freetext" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">forest.simmons21@gmail.com</a>></span><br clear="none">
Date: Thu, Oct 12, 2023, 5:35 PM<br clear="none">
Subject: Duncan Proposal Draft<br clear="none">
To: Michael Ossipoff <<a shape="rect" href="mailto:email9648742@gmail.com" class="ydp7c69d6eyiv6777086580moz-txt-link-freetext" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">email9648742@gmail.com</a>><br clear="none">
</div>
<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
<div>Michael Christened our new Q&D burial
resistant method "Duncan" after Duncan Black who
popularized the idea of using Borda's Method as a
fallback "completion" when the ballots fail to
unambiguously reveal the sincere "Condorcet" pairbeats-all
candidate.
<div><br clear="none">
</div>
<div>Our Duncan method has the same form as
Black's in that the official version directly specifies
electing the unambiguous Condorcet Candidate when there
is one, and falls back to another procedure that relies
on Borda Scores, otherwise.</div>
<div><br clear="none">
</div>
<div>It should be emphasized that in both cases
the fall back Borda based expedient is rarely needed.
For that reason some misguided voting reform advocates
have cavalierly opined that any decisive completion/
fallback method would be plenty adequate to supplement
the Condorcet Criterion requirement.</div>
<div><br clear="none">
</div>
<div>However, this casual attitude ignores the
feedback aspects of voting systems in that various
voting methods vary in the degree that they encourage or
discourage the creation of artificial beat cycles that
subvert/ hide the Condorcet Candidate from view,
bringing the completion method into greater prominence
in a potentially unstable cycle.</div>
<div><br clear="none">
</div>
<div>Unfortunately most of the extant methods
fall into this "positive" feedback category, including
Borda itself. Some less sensitive methods like
Approval and IRV/RCV have a built in "friction" that
dampens the feedback; but as systems engineers know, the
high performance components are the ones that need the
addition of some carefully engineered negative feedback
"circuit" to stabilize the system as a whole.</div>
<div><br clear="none">
</div>
<div>In our Condorcet Completion context, our
use of the Borda Count scores is carefully designed with
that stabilizing influence in mind: adventurous
strategists who are aware of this feature, when acting
rationally will be deterred from creating these cycles
that come back to bite them. Those not aware will find
out when their ploys backfire or otherwise disappoint
them.</div>
<div><br clear="none">
</div>
<div>How do these pesky cycles arise so easily
in Borda and other rank based methods?</div>
<div><br clear="none">
</div>
<div>Suppose that your personal preference
schedule for the alphabetized candidates looks like ...</div>
<div><br clear="none">
</div>
<div>A>C>X>Y>Z, and that C is the
Condorcet Candidate projected to win the election if
nobody acts nefariously.</div>
<div><br clear="none">
</div>
<div>You, and like minded friends, get the idea
to insincerely move your second choice to the bottom of
your ballot (so it now reads A>X>Y>Z>C) ...
not to be "nefarious" so much as to just increase the
winning chances of your favorite A.</div>
<div><br clear="none">
</div>
<div>Could this work?</div>
<div><br clear="none">
</div>
<div>Yes, under Black's method if your friends
follow your lead, this "nurial" of C under the "busses"
X, Y, and Z, could easily subvert one or more of C's
pairwise victories over X,Y, and Z, into defeats of C by
them, thereby hiding C's identity of sincere Universal
"pairbeater" status to just one more member of a
"beatcycle" of the form A beats X beats Y beats Z beats
C beats A.</div>
<div><br clear="none">
</div>
<div>Note that the buried candidate C still
beats the buriers' favorite, A ... because lowering C
does not decrease the number of ballots that support C
over A ... which is how easily and innocently beatcycles
like this can be created in Condorcet style elections
... at least in the absence of negative feedback from
the cycle resolution fallback method.</div>
<div><br clear="none">
</div>
<div>In traditional Black that fallback method
is Borda. Does that fix the problem? ... or does it
exacerbate it.</div>
<div><br clear="none">
</div>
<div>Well ... the same burial that put C at
disadvantage in the pairwise contests with X thru Z,
also lowered C's Borda score by 3 counts per ballot, and
raised</div>
<div> the Borda score of each of X thru Z to
the tune of one count per ballot.</div>
<div><br clear="none">
</div>
<div>The likely outcome is that C will end up
with the lowest score, and come in last in the finish
order.</div>
<div><br clear="none">
</div>
<div>By way of contrast, under our new Duncan
method, the most likely winner is X, and the least
likely winner is A, the burier faction's favorite ...
thus disappointing the burier faction supporters ...
teaching them that if they try to outsmart new Duncan
with insincere ballot rankings, they are apt to end up
helping elect their third (or later) choice instead of
their first choice or their second choice ... the one
that they so cleverly buried (however innocently or
without malice).</div>
<div><br clear="none">
</div>
<div>Too many dabblers in voting method reform
(as well as most professionals) are unaware of these
dynamics.</div>
<div><br clear="none">
</div>
<div>But now, with your new understanding, you,
at least, can become part of the solution.</div>
<div><br clear="none">
</div>
<div>Duncan Definition:</div>
<div><br clear="none">
</div>
<div>In the vast majority of the cases ...
those in which the pairwise counts of the ballots
unambiguously identify the candidate that pairbeats each
of the others ... elect that candidate.</div>
<div><br clear="none">
</div>
<div>Otherwise, elect the highest score
candidate that pairbeats every candidate with lower
score.</div>
<div><br clear="none">
</div>
<div>[Nominally "score" = Borda Count, though
STAR Voting scores, for example, could also serve]</div>
<div><br clear="none">
</div>
<div>How does this Duncan fallback procedure
work to prevent A from getting elected in our scenario
regarding A thru Z?</div>
<div><br clear="none">
</div>
<div>Well, could A pairbeat every lower score
candidate? In particular, could A pairbeat C, which is
now at the bottom of the Borda score pile ... certainly
lower than A ...?</div>
<div><br clear="none">
</div>
<div>Well, remember that "C beats A" was the
last step in the beatcycle created by A's friends.</div>
<div><br clear="none">
</div>
<div>So A does not pairbeat every lower score
candidate, and therefore cannot win.</div>
<div><br clear="none">
</div>
<div>New Duncan is burial resistant.</div>
<div><br clear="none">
</div>
<div>Next time ... more examples and insights
...</div>
<div><br clear="none">
</div>
<div>fws</div>
<div><br clear="none">
</div>
<div><br clear="none">
</div>
<div><br clear="none">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br clear="none">
<fieldset class="ydp7c69d6eyiv6777086580moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
<pre class="ydp7c69d6eyiv6777086580moz-quote-pre">----
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a shape="rect" href="https://electorama.com/em" class="ydp7c69d6eyiv6777086580moz-txt-link-freetext" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://electorama.com/em</a> for list info
</pre>
</blockquote></div>
</div></div><div class="ydp7c69d6eyqt8789344907" id="ydp7c69d6eyqt43151">----<br clear="none">Election-Methods mailing list - see <a shape="rect" href="https://electorama.com/em" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://electorama.com/em</a> for list info<br clear="none"></div></div>
</div>
</div></body></html>