¡Hello!
¿How fare you?
While explaining advanced voting systems to Bronies and PegaSisters, I
had an idea about combining the expressiveness of Score-Voting and he
resistance to tactical voting of Majority-Judgement. This is the line of
thought leading to the idea:
Majority-Judgement rests tactical voting by filtering out extreme
values which may be do to tactical voting. This is the way the voting system
would work:
0. Voters give their favorite candidate a positive +99 and their
most hated candidate a negative -99.
1. The voters then score other candidates relative to the 2
extremes.
2. After counting the votes, the counters throw out all of the
negative -99s and the positive +99s.
3. The counters remove FROM THE REMAINING BALLOTS the top 3rd plus
+ 1 ballot and the bottome 3rd plus + 1 ballot.
4. The counters then average the scores.
5. Highest average wins.
Example:
0. After filtering the negative -99s and the positive +99s,
Candidate A has 3 million votes.
1. Remove 1,000,001 of the votes with the highest score.
2. Remove the 1,000,001 votes with the lowest scores.
3. Average remaining 999,998 ballots.
With regular Score-Voting, one can keep also-rans and write-ins with
almost no support from wining by treating blanks and abstentions as negative
99s and assuming that anyone not writing in a candidate as voting against the
write-in and simply summing the votes. Since we average, we need a quorum for
keeping candidates with extremely low vote-totals. I suggest this simple
quorum-rule:
Determine the candidate receiving the most nonblanks and nonabstains.
Only run the above algorithm on candidates receiving greater than > 1/2 as many
nonabstains and nonblanks as the top nonblank nonabstained candidate.
Example:
The top nonabstained nonblank candidate has votes on 2 million ballots.
The quorum of nonabstained, nonblank ballots a candidate must get is 1 million.
I have 3 questions:
0. ¿Did I reinvent the wheel or is this a new system?
1. If this system is original, ¿what do the members of this list
think about it?
3. If this is a new system, ¿what should we name it?
Now, ¡it is time for advocacy! ;-) ¡Definitely not! This is an
untested voting system. If it survives everything we throw at it for over a
decade, then, we can consider it.
¡Peace!
--
“⸘Ŭalabio‽” <[email protected]>
Skype:
Walabio
An IntactWiki:
http://circleaks.org/
“You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your
own facts.”
——
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
