[EM] Presidential debate ordering
[EM] Presidential debate ordering Gervase Lam gervase.lam at group.force9.co.uk wrote: However, James Green-Armytage mentioned Reciprocal Pairing on this list in the past.? I rediscovered it in the following web page: http://fc.antioch.edu/~james_green-armytage/vm/reciprocal.htm That is interesting.? However, the objective shouldn't be to have debaters necessarily debate who they want to debate (as you point out). There is one problem I have with allowing the candidates to determine who they should debate with. snip The first front runner realises that in a head-to-head debate, he would do badly against the second front runner.? Therefore, the first front runner does not rank the second front runner.? This means that the two front runners will never debate with each other. Another option is to allow each candidate pick 2 other candidates (via submitting a ranking).? The top 2 other candidates would then be paired with him.? He would also have to debate the candidates that pick him. The reciprocal system could be used if there is 'overflow'.? If 4 candidates want to debate with a front runner then only 2 are allowed (excluding the 2 the candidate picked).? I would probably break the tie based on popularity of the candidates rather than their own rankings. For example, assuming candidate A is most popular, B next and so on. A: BCF B: CDE C: BEF D: BAE E: BCA F: BAC Everyone wants to debate with B, B's debates partners would be: B picks C and D, so is paired with them as they rank B number 1 too. A,E and F want to debate B.? A and E win as they are most popular. This results in 4 debates for each candidate, which for a large number of candidates is much less than N*(N-1)/2. It is still alot of debating.? In a 6 candidate field, that it 24 debates. If the number on the panel was increased to 4, then this could be reduced. What about something like the following process. Panel sizes are P Each candidate submits a ranking The matching is then Each candidate 'enters' the room. A candidate may join a non-full panel. A candidate may replace a member of a panel as long as all other members of the panel either - prefer the new candidate to the old candidate - prefer one of the remaining candidates to both the new and to be replaced candidate A candidate attempts to join the panel of its favourite and works down the list until he gets a spot.? If he fails, he forms his own panel. I dunno if this is guaranteed to end though. My thoughts are that once a panel member has a candidate they want to debate with, they have no further say in how the panel is made up. Alternatively, may be James's Debate Inclusion method could be used instead: http://fc.antioch.edu/~james_green-armytage/vm/debate.htm Interesting too.? There could even be multiple debate panels.? The final panel before the election might be the first panel elected. Another issue in this whole thing is how to force the candidates to participate.? No candidate will agree to debate with certain candidates who they find (or claim to find) unsavory. I guess if a large media organisation ran it, they might be able to swing it. Who currently runs the US presidential debates ? Raphfrk Interesting site what if anyone could modify the laws www.wikocracy.com Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection. election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Presidential debate ordering
Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 16:38:03 -0700 (PDT) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [EM] Presidential debate ordering A few days ago, we had the Republican debates on TV, and I came to the conclusion that having ten people on the stage at once was an unmanageable mess. What I'd like to see is one-on-one, round-robin debates. Now, we could pair up the candidates randomly, but where is the fun in that? What I thought might be interesting is to have each candidate pick the order he wanted to debate every other candidate, and choose the order that best matches the aggregate preference. Anyone know the best way to do something like this? My initial idea was to have a pairwise matrix ballot that contains all the head-to-heads between each candidate. Each candidate then votes Approval style for the head-to-heads (including the head-to-heads involving the voting candidate himself). The voting is then tallied, with the head-to-heads that are Approved by both the involved candidates listed first and then the head-to-heads that are Approved by only one of the involved candidates. Ties are broken by the total number of Approval votes the head-to-heads (i.e. the votes from candidates not involved in the head-to-head in question are included). However, James Green-Armytage mentioned Reciprocal Pairing on this list in the past. I rediscovered it in the following web page: http://fc.antioch.edu/~james_green-armytage/vm/reciprocal.htm I would do an initial Reciprocal Pairing. This would get give the 'first pairings.' I would then remove from each candidates' ballots the candidates they have already debated with and then repeat the Reciprocal Pairing. As the candidates can't really be divided into 'stationary' and 'active' groups, I would use something more like the 'Random-Order Method' that is mentioned. However, to lessen the effect of the paradoxes mentioned on the web page, I would have the candidates enter the room in a pre- determined order. Maybe those who have already debated with the candidates that they most preferred would enter the room first. Wikipedia has also got an article on this that mentions further variations, though not with any detail: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stable_marriage_problem There is one problem I have with allowing the candidates to determine who they should debate with. Suppose there are two front runners. In a poll, the first front runner is deemed to be the Condorcet winner. The second front runner would be the Condorcet winner but for the first front runner. The first front runner realises that in a head-to-head debate, he would do badly against the second front runner. Therefore, the first front runner does not rank the second front runner. This means that the two front runners will never debate with each other. One way around the problem is to somehow only count the candidate's ballot that favours the head-to-head the most. However, you then may get the situation that all of the other candidates rank the first front runner top on their ballots. That would mean that the first front runner may never get the chance to debate with the second front runner. Alternatively, may be James's Debate Inclusion method could be used instead: http://fc.antioch.edu/~james_green-armytage/vm/debate.htm Thanks, Gervase. election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Presidential debate ordering
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A few days ago, we had the Republican debates on TV, and I came to the conclusion that having ten people on the stage at once was an unmanageable mess. At thirty seconds per answer, candidates were limited to faux anger and soundbites, while the cheers and applause gave it a gameshow feel. (Well, okay, so it was better than the debate on MSNBC, where you had questions like What do you hate most about America?) What I'd like to see is one-on-one, round-robin debates. Now, we could pair up the candidates randomly, but where is the fun in that? What I thought might be interesting is to have each candidate pick the order he wanted to debate every other candidate, and choose the order that best matches the aggregate preference. Unfortunately, I am not certain the fairest way to piece together incomplete debate orders (each candidate would have nine debates, but the total field would have a total of 45 debates). Anyone know the best way to do something like this? It would be similar to scheduling a baseball season or other sporting event, so it would seem to have a use beyond just debates. Interesting idea. 10 people on stage is to many. but 45 pair wise debates it a lot for the public to watch. Perhaps there is a good middle ground say, 4-5 people on stage at once. and try to make sure that each candidate faces each candidate on stage once. Thanks! Michael Rouse election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Presidential debate ordering
On May 22, 2007, at 16:41 , Howard Swerdfeger wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A few days ago, we had the Republican debates on TV, and I came to the conclusion that having ten people on the stage at once was an unmanageable mess. At thirty seconds per answer, candidates were limited to faux anger and soundbites, while the cheers and applause gave it a gameshow feel. (Well, okay, so it was better than the debate on MSNBC, where you had questions like What do you hate most about America?) What I'd like to see is one-on-one, round-robin debates. Now, we could pair up the candidates randomly, but where is the fun in that? What I thought might be interesting is to have each candidate pick the order he wanted to debate every other candidate, and choose the order that best matches the aggregate preference. Unfortunately, I am not certain the fairest way to piece together incomplete debate orders (each candidate would have nine debates, but the total field would have a total of 45 debates). Anyone know the best way to do something like this? It would be similar to scheduling a baseball season or other sporting event, so it would seem to have a use beyond just debates. Interesting idea. 10 people on stage is to many. but 45 pair wise debates it a lot for the public to watch. Perhaps there is a good middle ground say, 4-5 people on stage at once. and try to make sure that each candidate faces each candidate on stage once. There could be different criteria when organizing the debates: 1) Fix the size of the debate groups 2) Arrange each candidate the same number of pairwise debates with other candidates (typically one with each) 3) Give each candidate same number of minutes in TV Criterion 3 is maybe a fair criterion for politics. In addition to this one could fix the size of the groups (allowing some to debate in smaller groups could be considered an advantage). These together mean that in most cases we would need to violate criterion 2. Some candidates might meet twice. Maybe that would be no major problem. They would have maybe little less to talk to each others at the second round and they could concentrate beating the others, which would not be quite fair. But they could also continue their previous fights and balance the situation this way :-). Would this method be a fair method? Juho Thanks! Michael Rouse election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info ___ All new Yahoo! Mail The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use. - PC Magazine http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Presidential debate ordering
Interesting idea. 10 people on stage is to many. but 45 pair wise debates it a lot for the public to watch. Perhaps there is a good middle ground say, 4-5 people on stage at once. and try to make sure that each candidate faces each candidate on stage once. There could be different criteria when organizing the debates: 1) Fix the size of the debate groups 2) Arrange each candidate the same number of pairwise debates with other candidates (typically one with each) 3) Give each candidate same number of minutes in TV Criterion 3 is maybe a fair criterion for politics. In addition to this one could fix the size of the groups (allowing some to debate in smaller groups could be considered an advantage). These together mean that in most cases we would need to violate criterion 2. Some candidates might meet twice. Maybe that would be no major problem. They would have maybe little less to talk to each others at the second round and they could concentrate beating the others, which would not be quite fair. But they could also continue their previous fights and balance the situation this way :-). Would this method be a fair method? Or even better then asking if its fairis it useful? Taking a step back: Firstly we can ask are selves two questions. Are debates useful? and Why? Then we need to set out to design a debate structure to maximize the attributes of the debate that are useful, or abandon the debate structure for something else that better meets the needs of the public. So, I do Find debates useful for 3 reasons. 1. They inform me of candidates alleged positions on the issues 2. They offer some insight on the candidates ability to think logically and interpret/deconstruct an opponents position. 3. They offer some insight on the charisma of a candidate I would say debates are most useful to me personally when each candidates positions are clearly stated. and ample time is granted to each opponent to fully explain why the opponents position is wrong. It should offer a variety of opinions but allow me to quickly skip over candidates I have eliminated or issues I feel are not important. As such perhaps the debate could be pre-recorded over several days with each candidate given 30 minute opening/closing statements and 10-15 minute answers on each question. followed by a 5 minute follow up. The marathon debate should then be Indexed for easy retrieval on the Internet, or other similar media. But then that requires abandoning the traditions set in place before the printing press was common place. much less computers, and the Internet. cheers, How Juho Thanks! Michael Rouse election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info ___ All new Yahoo! Mail The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use. - PC Magazine http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
[EM] Presidential debate ordering
A few days ago, we had the Republican debates on TV, and I came to the conclusion that having ten people on the stage at once was an unmanageable mess. At thirty seconds per answer, candidates were limited to faux anger and soundbites, while the cheers and applause gave it a gameshow feel. (Well, okay, so it was better than the debate on MSNBC, where you had questions like What do you hate most about America?) What I'd like to see is one-on-one, round-robin debates. Now, we could pair up the candidates randomly, but where is the fun in that? What I thought might be interesting is to have each candidate pick the order he wanted to debate every other candidate, and choose the order that best matches the aggregate preference. Unfortunately, I am not certain the fairest way to piece together incomplete debate orders (each candidate would have nine debates, but the total field would have a total of 45 debates). Anyone know the best way to do something like this? It would be similar to scheduling a baseball season or other sporting event, so it would seem to have a use beyond just debates. Thanks! Michael Rouse election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
