Assume you have some way to score the "goodness" of a slate of representatives. You want to find the best possible such slate, but you don't have the computational resources to score all possible slates. The options are:
1. Add candidates one at a time. Advantages: deterministic and simple. Disadvantages: not very optimal. 2. Use the best nominated slate. Advantages: takes advantage of any future algorithmic improvements without needing new rules. Disadvantage: could provide an edge to those with more computational resources; requires time for people to nominate slates. 3. Add candidates N at a time, with N being as big as your computer can handle. All of the above have been discussed. But there's another possibility, which is probably better than 3: 4. "One out and two in" - at each step, find the best slate which differs from the prior step by removing M candidates and then adding M+N. This is almost certainly computationally feasible for N=M=1. 2011/7/7 Toby Pereira <[email protected]> > On my web page where I describe my Proportional Range Voting System ( > http://www.tobypereira.co.uk/voting.html), I have suggested that it should > be possible for a computer to sort out the result in a reasonable amount of > time. Of course, this may not actually be the case considering the number of > possible winning sets of candidates that you might get in some elections. > > So as with other systems, a sequential system could be used. Calculate who > would be the winning candidate in a single-winner election and then find the > best combination of two winners, given that the single winner is elected. > Then with these two elected, find the best combination of three and so on. > Then if this takes it too far the other way and makes it too "easy" for a > computer to calculate you can select candidates in blocks of two or three. I > think I've seen Forest Simmons and others discussing this hybrid version of > sequential/non-sequential systems. > > I think this would still be a very different system to Reweighted Range > Voting, especially consdering that it elects single winners in a different > way. > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Warren Smith <[email protected]> > *To:* election-methods <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Sun, 3 July, 2011 20:25:35 > *Subject:* [EM] Toby Pereira, PR voting methods > > Two are RRV > http://rangevoting.org/RRV.html > and asset voting > http://rangevoting.org/Asset.html > > A recent real-world election that used RRV is described here: > June2011RealWorldRRVvotes.txt > > In T.P.'s essay it'd be nice if he subdivided it into smaller chunks > with subheading titles, and summarized whatever he concluded > concisely. > > -- > Warren D. Smith > http://RangeVoting.org <http://rangevoting.org/> <-- add your endorsement > (by clicking > "endorse" as 1st step) > and > math.temple.edu/~wds/homepage/works.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 > >
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
