On 6.7.2011, at 6.42, Russ Paielli wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 2:14 AM, Juho Laatu <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 5.7.2011, at 11.19, Russ Paielli wrote:
>
>> If one wants to simplify the inheritance rules even more then we might end
>> up using a tree method (I seem to mention it in every mail I send:). In that
>> approach there is no risk of having loops in the candidate transfer order.
>> Votes would be counted right away for each branch, and the candidate of the
>> largest brach of the largest branch of the ... would win.
>>
>> That sounds interesting, but I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Can
>> you give an example?
>
> Here's one example.
>
> Tree of candidates + number of personal votes + sum of votes of candidates of
> each branch:
>
> Branch1 (13)
> Branch1.1 (7)
> A (4)
> B (3)
> Branch1.2 (6)
> C (6)
> Branch2 (18)
> Branch2.1 (12)
> D (5)
> E (7)
> Branch2.2 (5)
> F (3)
> G (2)
> Branch2.3 (1)
> H (1)
>
> - Branch2 has more votes than Branch1 => Branch2 wins
> - Branch2.1 has more votes than Branch2.2 and Branch2.3 => Branch2.1 wins
> - candidate E has more votes than candidate D => candidate E wins
>
> The tree approach thus forces the order of transfer to be non-cyclic. The
> transfer order of candidate E is E > D > {F, G, H}.
>
> The tree format can be printed on paper and it is easy to grasp. The ballot
> sheet may also follow the same tree format. Branches may have names (e.g.
> party names) or be unnamed. Left wing parties could join forces under one
> branch. Candidates of one party could be divided in smaller groups. Or maybe
> the branches have no party names and party affiliations, maybe just
> descriptive names, maybe no branch names at all.
>
>
> Thanks for the example, but I don't understand. Who decides what the branches
> are, and based on what? Why is E transferring votes if E has the most votes?
> And what are the counts after each transfer? Sorry if those are dumb
> questions.
Maybe the method is simpler than you expected. It could be as well described as
a list based method where the "parties" can be internally split in smaller
groupings (or they can join also together in larger groups). My references to
vote transfers are just to explain how this method relates to methods that use
transfers in the vote counting process. The votes that E "transfers" are
actually not taken away from him but counted both for him and all the branches
that contain him (sorry about using such confusing terms). In this method one
can in a way "transfer" all the votes right away to the groups that some
candidate is part of. We thus just count the votes of each party / grouping
(i.e. sum up the votes to the candidates of that party). Votes are not
"transferred" (or summed up) to other candidates but to the branches of the
tree (= parties, groups) that represent all the candidates within them. The
formal vote counting rules will probably not use term "transfer" at all (maybe
"sum" instead).
The numbers in the example show the final counts, where the votes (that were
all given to the candidates) have been summed up. The vote counting rule starts
simply "the biggest party gets the only seat". In this example Branch2 (=
party2 or wing2) is bigger than Branch1, and therefore the only available seat
goes to that party. (Note that the tree method could be used as well in
multi-member elections.) Then that single seat will be allocated within Branch1
to the biggest of the "party internal" branches, i.e. Branch2.1, and then to E
that has more votes than D.
The branches will be decided by the parties or whatever associations or
groupings the candidates and their supporters will form. Let's say that
Branch1.1 and Branch 1.2 are two left wing parties that nominated their
candidates ( {A, B} and {C} ) themselves and then decided to joins forces and
form a joint branch (Branch1) to beat the right wing candidates (that was not
enough though since the right wing parties did the same thing and got more
votes). Or in a two-party country like the U.S. this example would of course be
Branch1=Democrats, Branch2=Republicans, and then the candidates of these
parties would form some groups within that party. Branch2.1. could contain two
similar minded candidates from California. They joined together since they
understood that if they would both run alone, they would probably be spoilers
to each others and they could not win. Party internal groupings could thus be
arranged by the party itself or by the individual candidates that form the
sub-branch. It would depend on the election rules who is will formally nominate
such groups (party vs. already nominated candidates vs. whatever group of
candidates).
From strategic point of view it makes sense to form sub-brances (all the way to
a binary tree). Within Branch2 sub-branches Branch2.2 and Branch2.3 could have
also joined forces together (and add one extra level of hierarchy in the tree)
in order to try to take the victory away from Branch2.1 (they would not have
been successful though since together they had only 6 votes).
Parties could also avoid making too many branches in the fear that they would
make the party appear or actually "split inside" into different camps. Maybe
parties could nominate less candidates because of that. But on the other hand
some other party might nominate more candidates and get also more votes this
way (since they could nominate candidates that represent a wide variety of
voter opinions).
The tree method sets some clear limitations to the inheritance order. But on
the other hand these limitations help the poor voters in making their decisions
since they need not wonder why candidate A transfers to C although a very
similar (in their minds) candidate B transfers to D. In the tree model
candidates that think the same way would be forced to join forces and have
similar transfer order from some branch point onwards.
Trees make it thus very clear what the individual candidates stand for. And
that clear understanding will influence their behaviour also after the
election. "Green" and "southern" candidates must decide if they form a green
branch that will be internally split into southern and northern sub-branches,
or if they form a southern branch that will be further divided in green and
some other groups. The more important topics should be used first, closer to
the root of the tree. That should make also the inheritance order and relative
closeness of different candidates in the tree quite natural (but not perfect
since e.g. the green candidates can not first transfer to all the greenish
candidates of all the parties and then to their own party).
And of course the voters can not transfer their votes in whatever order. The
tree format actually reflects more what the candidates think of themselves than
what the voters think about them. This property (that is shared by all methods
that are based on transfer order as given by the candidates, like your method)
is a good thing in the sense that when candidates clearly say what they stand
for, they can not tell different stories to different voter groups in the hope
that they would get higher in the preference order of those voters, and voters
with false understanding on what some candidate stands for are corrected.
(As a multi-member method trees will also provide very accurate proportional
representation between the branches.)
Juho
>
> --Russ P.
>
> --
> http://RussP.us
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
