On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 8:33 AM, Jameson Quinn <[email protected]>wrote:
> 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. > > Okay, I changed the Wiki. I'll try to give it a second look tomorrow to see if I want to re-word anything. > > 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
