The results are in for the voting system branding poll<http://betterpolls.com/v/1189>, in which I polled new names for using with the general public to advocate the main classes of voting systems. Just as "IRV" is more descriptive and user-friendly than "Hare", there must be less-opaque names than "Bucklin" or "Condorcet" which we could use.
The site where I ran the polls, betterpolls.com, does a really thorough job. It uses a generalized range ballot to infer the winner under a number of voting systems, does a good job of putting the results in exhaustive tables. So if you're interested in that, follow the link above. Here's a quick summary, followed by my comments. There were only 16 votes. I said before the poll that I was hoping it would reach 25 votes, so 16, while not horrible, is not ideal. Still, I think that the results are valid. *First question: Name for Condorcet*. (I know that there are of course many variants of Condorcet, but since they mostly agree for practical cases where the Smith set is 1-3 candidates, for the purposes of advocacy they can be lumped together.) Winners by system: SystemWinning nameInstant Runoff Normalized Ratings Condorcet VotingVirtual Round Robin*Round Robin Voting (RRV)* -- nice contrast with IRV. Could be Instant Round Robin Voting (IRRV)Raw Rating SummationRound Robin Voting (RRV) -- nice contrast with IRV. Could be Instant Round Robin Voting (IRRV) ApprovalCondorcet VotingInstant Runoff VotingPairwise Champion Voting (PCV) Essentially, "Condorcet" had the broadest consensus, but "RRV" (an early write-in) was most favored, with "PCV" a close second. *Second question: Name for Bucklin* (again, lumping all Bucklin variants together for the purpose of advocacy) The winner across all methods was "*Majority Choice Approval (MCA)*". Third question: Name for Range This was the old question of Range or Score. Cardinal methods picked Range; ordinal ones picked Score. In this case, it is significant that some voters were strongly strategic, rating all options at +10 or -10, while others were much more neutral, in some cases with no ratings below 0. SystemWinner(s)Instant Runoff Normalized RatingsRange Voting (RV)Virtual Round RobinScore Voting (SV)Raw Rating Summation Range Voting (RV)ApprovalRange Voting (RV)Instant Runoff VotingScore Voting (SV) *Fourth question: Name for IRV/Hare* The winner across all methods was "*IRV*". *Fifth question: Best system* (this was included only for interest, as the sample was not at all scientific) The winner across all methods was *Range*. Counting the results by Approval, it was tied with Approval and Condorcet, because all three systems got nearly unanimously non-negative ratings. Interestingly, there was a Condorcet tie for second place, with Approval >> Condorcet > Bucklin > Approval. That may have been a statistical fluke, although it actually makes some sense to me. ----------------- In my opinion, these results are good. They're not my own top choices, but for branding, I trust the wisdom of crowds far more than my own guesses. The old Range/Score debate is not resolved, but I have already started to use the new names in my advocacy, and they work. For Condorcet, I say "Round Robin Voting" for a generic Condorcet-compliant system, but "pairwise champion" for the CW. For Bucklin, I understand that "MCA" already has a technical meaning as a specific Bucklin variant, but I think it can still be used to advocate for the general class of (equality-allowed) Bucklin systems. I'd be interested to hear if people are willing to join me in starting this usage when advocating for these systems with the general public. Honestly, I think that it would increase our success. I know that I'm one of the few strong advocates for MCA, but there are a number of people on these lists who favor some form of RRV as the best system for practical implementation. What say you? Cheers, JQ
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
