Andy, I like both of your suggestions. Why don't you try putting them on the page <http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/Simple_Optionally-Delegated_Approval>yourself? I don't want this system or that page to be "mine", I just want them to be good.
2011/7/7 Andy Jennings <[email protected]> > Jameson, > > I'm really liking the SODA method that is evolving. I have a couple of > cosmetic suggestions: > > First, in the description of SODA, I dislike using the term "delegate" for > step 3, candidate-to-candidate transfers. I would only use the word > "delegate" for step 2, the bullet voters' votes getting delegated to their > candidates. I prefer to think of step 3 as the candidates "casting" their > votes (which includes all the delegated votes they control). It's a much > simpler mental model for me. Since they aren't passing anything on to > another candidate which can be changed or controlled, I don't consider it > delegation. Also, it decreases the implication of smoke-filled rooms (for > me) to have as little "delegation" as possible. I think this terminology > was why I was confused about step 3 in a prior email. > > Second, I find it incredibly confusing to say you have to write in "do not > delegate" if you bullet vote and you don't want your vote delegated. I > realize that you want delegation to be the default for bullet voters. Why > not organize the ballot with that as a separate question (as follows)? > > ------------ > "Vote for as many candidates as you approve:" > > [ ] Candidate A > [ ] Candidate B > [ ] Candidate C > [ ] Candidate D > [ ] ___(write-in)_____ > [ ] ___(write-in)_____ > [ ] ___(write-in)_____ > > "If you only vote for one candidate, he can choose to transfer his vote to > one or more alternate candidates in the event that he cannot win, UNLESS you > check the box below:" > > [ ] Do not let the candidate I voted for transfer my vote to other > candidates > ------------ > > Andy > > > > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Jameson Quinn <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> >> 2011/7/6 Andy Jennings <[email protected]> >> >>> Jameson, >>> >>> I have become confused about one point of operation in SODA. Take this >>> scenario: >>> >>> 35 A>B>C >>> 34 B>C>A >>> 31 C>A>B >>> >>> If A delegates to A,B then does B have 69 votes he can delegate to B,C or >>> does he have only 34 he can play with? >>> >>> In other words, can votes delegated from one candidate to another be >>> re-delegated to a third candidate? >>> >> >> B has 34. Delegable votes are only bullet votes. In fact, a real SODA >> scenario would probably be more like: >> >> 25 A (>B) >> 5 A,X >> 5 A,B >> 26 B (>C) >> 4 B,X >> 4 B, C >> 29 C (>A) >> 1 C,X >> 1 C,A >> Initial totals: 36A, 39B, 35C >> Delegable: 25A, 26B, 29C >> >> Note that in this example, C has the most delegable votes and would decide >> delegation first, even though B has the most total initial votes. In this >> case - a Condorcet cycle - the result would be the same no matter who >> delegates first, as long as all candidates use correct strategy. But there >> are cases where it wouldn't be: >> >> 25: Left (>X) >> 15: Left, Center >> 5: Left, Right >> 25: Center (>Right) >> 30: Right (>Center) >> >> The candidate Left has not declared any delegable preferences, but the >> left voters clearly tend to prefer Center over Right. Center is the >> Condorcet winner, but Right would get the chance to delegate before Center, >> and thus would be the strategic winner under SODA. If delegation order went >> in order of total votes instead of delegable votes, Center would win. >> >> Hmm... now that I look at this scenario in black and white, I'm starting >> to think that delegation order should be in order of total, not delegable, >> votes. Not that there isn't a case to be made for Right in this election; if >> Center were really a better result, then they should get either Left's >> delegation or more delegable votes from the nominally voters who chose >> [Left, Center] here. This argument like FairVote's handwaving arguments >> about "strength" of support - which is not necessarily invalid just because >> it's imprecise and easy to reduce ad absurdem. But... I think that having >> this scenario go to Right puts too much of a burden of strategic calculation >> on the [Left, Center] voters. >> >> So, yet another adjustment to SODA, I think. Delegation choice goes in >> descending order of total votes; the person with the most total votes gets >> the "first move". If my grounded intuition is correct, this should not >> matter when there's a 3-way cycle, only when there's a pairwise champion >> (CW). >> >> Hopefully this will be the last time I have to adjust SODA. Also note that >> all the adjustments so far have been minor tweaks; any of the versions so >> far would work well, though I believe they have been steadily improving. >> Current rules, as always, are at >> http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/Simple_Optionally-Delegated_Approval >> >> JQ >> >> >>> I looked at the wiki and still am unclear on this. I still have the >>> original SODA proposal in my head (where votes could not be delegated >>> multiple times) and I can't remember if we've changed this detail at some >>> point. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Andy >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Jameson Quinn >>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> Russ, you said that SODA was too complicated. In my prior message, I >>>> responded by saying that it was actually pretty simple. But thanks for your >>>> feedback; I realize that the SODA page was not conveying that simplicity >>>> well. I've changed the procedure there from 8 individual steps to 4 steps - >>>> simple one-sentence overviews - with the details in sub-steps. Of these 4 >>>> steps, only step 1 is not in your proposal. And the whole of step 4 is just >>>> three words. >>>> >>>> The procedure is exactly the same, but I hope that this >>>> version<http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/Simple_Optionally-Delegated_Approval#Procedure>does >>>> a better job of communicating the purpose and underlying simplicity of >>>> the system. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Jameson >>>> >>>> ---- >>>> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list >>>> info >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
