What about Schulze STV? Here's the link: http://home.versanet.de/~chris1-schulze/schulze2.pdf
On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 10:59 PM, Greg Nisbet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > For the Intel Science Talent Search, Warren Smith and I are working on a > system to measure how representative the groups created by various > multiwinner electoral methods are. This shall be done by having the public > have opinions of various binary social issues and the candidates will have > stance on these. Then the group of winners will get together and vote (using > the only reasonable voting method with two options) and this will be the > basis for seeing how well the winners have "emulated" society. > > Several things to note, > a) This represents a departure from the tradition concept of utility > somewhat. The candidates themselves won't have utility (they may have > something resembling it, but that comes much MUCH later) instead the net > opinions of parliament will. > b) In order to simulate strategic voting, either the Vote By Result system I > described earlier will be used or one based on assigning "victory > probabilities" to candidates in a massive feedback loop that will eventually > approach equilibrium. More on this later > > Anyway, onto the main point. > > If you have a multiwinner method of some sort, that would be great. > Party-related methods are great, but as we aren't exactly sure how to > emulate parties yet.. they are less useful now than they would be, say in a > month, that's no reason not to suggest a nice party method, but just sort of > keep that in mind. > > Both ranked and rated ballot methods are appreciated. If you have some > variation of an existing method that is great too. > > Single winner methods are also appreciated. We are going to attempt > districted single winner methods as well for the purposes of this thing. The > number of single winner methods tested won't be quite as generous as the > other Bayesian regret tests, but whatever. > > The current multiwinner methods I can think of off the top of my head are: > CPO-STV > STV with various transfer rules (I don't anticipate TOO great a difference > here) > RRV > PAV (proportional approval voting) > PRV ( " " range " " ) > SNTV > MMP > Cumulative Voting > Sainte-Lague > Largest Rem > D'Hondt > Limited Vote > Block Vote > Sortition (Random Winner) > > And, a special place of (dis)honor is reserved for distrticted FPTP. It is > the norm for Anglophone countries and a cause of political misery the world > over. > > I know many of those methods listed are crappy, but I say some kind of > yardstick is called for. > > Oh yeah, if your method is sufficiently obscure, please maybe give a brief > description of how it works or a hyperlink to one. > ---- > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info > > ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
