[EM] An hypothetical voting system based on Score-Voting and Majority-Judgement which I do not advocate.
¡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‽” 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
[EM] Only a thought-Experiment. (Was: Re: Majority-Judgement using adjectives versus alphabetical scales versus numerical ranges.)
2012-12-09T17:1244Z, Jameson Quinn: > 2012/12/8 ⸘Ŭalabio‽ > 2012:12-08T08:30:24Z, Kristofer Munsterhjelm: > > On 12/08/2012 06:19 AM, ⸘Ŭalabio‽ wrote: > >>1. > >> This is my preferred range: > >>Negative -99 to positive +99 >> I wish to find a way to merge Score-Voting and Majority-Judgement into >> something even better. > In order to find something better, we would at least need to know > what's wrong with what we have. I am just curious. This is just a thought-experiment. I see nothing wrong with Score-Voting. My biggest problem with Majority-Judgement is that it needs more testing. This is what I advocate: 0. Remove the overvote rule, thus turning Plurality-Voting into Approval Voting. 1. Expand the range from 0 to 1 to from negative -99 to positive +99, thus turning Approval Voting into Score-Voting. While a tried to explain advanced voting to PegaSisters and Bronies, I had an interesting idea. I am almost ready to submit my idea to the mailing list Electoral Methods. I definitely do not advocate the adoption of a voting system I just pulled out of mine ass —— evidently, we just went from ponies to asses ;-) —— last week. The idea was combining the expressivity of Score-Voting with the resistance to tactical voting of Majority-Judgement. > Jameson “⸘Ŭalabio‽” Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] An artist's view on voting methods
Kristofer Munsterhjelm said: > > Could such a "cultural election" [of a narrative world view] > > happen in modern times, do you think? Or what might prevent it? > > In the most strict sense, I don't think so. Modernity has too many > aspects to be made into a narrative world view. You might see it in > groups within some given society, though: those who hold a certain > identity might agree upon the direction of some aspects of modern > life - enough to provide such a narrative - but only for the parts > that are relevant to them. I agree, fragmentation is essential to modernity. We'd have to expand the question (in the strong sense) to "contemporary times". Modernity might then hang in the balance; it might change, or give way to something else. > In the weaker sense, it is everywhere. Sets of values are often > woven into a narrative, and politicians refer to the narratives to > compactly state their values. A conservative may talk about > "preserving the American dream", for example, while a liberal may > tell the voters he can be part of a continuing change for the > better. These seem to be two aspects of the Christian theme of salvation. Their competition as self-reliance vs. charity (or conservative vs. liberal) might be a consequence of Christianity's failure as a myth in the Reformation (strong sense), or America's failure as a myth in contemporary times (weaker sense). Adam Curtis says, "When a nation is powerful it tells the world confident stories about the future. The stories can be frightening or enchanting, but they make sense of the world. But when that power begins to ebb, the stories fall apart. All that is left are fragments, which haunt you like half-forgotten dreams." http://thoughtmaybe.com/it-felt-like-a-kiss/ > The world-views and associated stories compete. Thus there's no > single thread (because the views of the people, or those said to > represent them, may shift from one side to another), but each > "alternative" is pretty well delineated. In the sense there are many > stories, each story is pretty clear, but because there are many, and > each period of governance may have a quite drastic shift from one to > another, there's no single narrative to frame the whole culture. The Americans call this "polarization". They look back to a time when (for whatever reason) they rode above it. > (Maybe "we permit many stories" could itself be a story?) That seems a promising approach. So the story is not only diverse in form (like a compilation) but it also takes diversity as a theme. It's a story about our own diversity. There's a negative aspect to that story. We're at an all time low in terms of independent civilizations or traditions. All the fragments of the modern world are dissolved in a global singularity: \ | / past, spread out among continents \|/ | present, a single global civilization /|\ / | \ future, spread out again (among stars?) > Perhaps the common property is that a group has to have members that > feel that they're "of that group" to a sufficient degree before > narrative election works. ... The singularity might do the job here. We feel it as a series of global crises that touch us locally, if only because we learn of them. Or we feel it as a common, existential threat. Rewatching that Curtis video, it now seems to me that he's grappling with many of the elements of such a story. His latest effort (if you haven't seen it) is "All Watched Over By Machines Of Loving Grace": http://thoughtmaybe.com/all-watched-over-by-machines-of-loving-grace/ Mike Kristofer Munsterhjelm said: > On 12/04/2012 07:31 AM, Michael Allan wrote: > > Kristofer Munsterhjelm said: > >> One should be careful with election by story, though. The worst kind > >> of modern-day dictatorial regimes have often been backed by stories > >> or myths to lend the regime legitimacy. ... > > > > Yes, I agree. The events of the 20th century effectively innoculated > > a generation against this particular disease, but younger generations > > aren't necessarily immune. Under the right circumstances, propaganda > > can masquerade as a legitimate world view. It can fool people into > > making terrible mistakes. > > > >> ... For instance, left-wing authoritarian rulers have claimed power > >> to have been given to them by the workers or the people, and that > >> the centralization of power through authoritarian measures is needed > >> in order to protect the system from vast external enemies that would > >> otherwise destroy it, and so that the rulers can direct the nation > >> towards a glorious future. Similar mythology exists on the right: > >> see, for instance, Gentile's description of the structure of Italian > >> Fascism: http://www.oslo2000.uio.no/program/papers/s12/s12-gentile.pdf > >> Among other things, he notes that totalitarianism provides a > >> single narrative, then seeks to "politicize" all of life so as to > >> pull it into that narrative.
Re: [EM] Majority-Judgement using adjectives versus alphabetical scales versus numerical ranges.
On 12/9/2012 9:12 AM, Jameson Quinn wrote: > ... > 2012/12/8 ⸘Ŭalabio‽ mailto:wala...@macosx.com> > ... > ¡That is so last week! I wish to find a way to merge > Score-Voting and Majority-Judgement into something even better. > > In order to find something better, we would at least need to know what's > wrong with what we have. There seems to be a lot of disagreement about > that point; smart people can't agree on whether Score or MJ is better. > So I think research is in order before we tear off and design 15 new > systems. As I see it: * Advantage of Majority-Judgement (MJ): Makes it (relatively compared to score and approval methods) more difficult to vote strategically. * Advantage of score ballots: Collect the greatest amount of information from the voter. Combining those two advantages could yield a better method. I encourage Ŭalabio to explore that possibility. Yet I would recommend adding yet another advantage, namely the ability to fully rank all the choices. As I've said before, credibility for the correctness of the most popular choice is undermined if the method cannot also identify the second-most popular choice, and so on down to the least-popular choice. Richard Fobes On 12/9/2012 9:12 AM, Jameson Quinn wrote: 2012/12/8 ⸘Ŭalabio‽ mailto:wala...@macosx.com>> 2012:12-08T08:30:24Z, Kristofer Munsterhjelm: > On 12/08/2012 06:19 AM, ⸘Ŭalabio‽ wrote: >> 1. >> This is my preferred range: >> Negative -99 to positive +99 > The ponies already objected to your preferred range, and I think their objection has validity. If they find it too hard to find the right rating between -99 and +99, then they'll consider the method bad however you put it. Again, RBJ has voiced the same point here on the list: "Range asks for too much, Approval asks for too little". ¡That is so last week! I wish to find a way to merge Score-Voting and Majority-Judgement into something even better. In order to find something better, we would at least need to know what's wrong with what we have. There seems to be a lot of disagreement about that point; smart people can't agree on whether Score or MJ is better. So I think research is in order before we tear off and design 15 new systems. 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
Re: [EM] Majority-Judgement using adjectives versus alphabetical scales versus numerical ranges.
2012/12/8 ⸘Ŭalabio‽ > 2012:12-08T08:30:24Z, Kristofer Munsterhjelm: > > > On 12/08/2012 06:19 AM, ⸘Ŭalabio‽ wrote: > > >> 1. > > >> This is my preferred range: > > >> Negative -99 to positive +99 > > > The ponies already objected to your preferred range, and I think > their objection has validity. If they find it too hard to find the right > rating between -99 and +99, then they'll consider the method bad however > you put it. Again, RBJ has voiced the same point here on the list: "Range > asks for too much, Approval asks for too little". > > ¡That is so last week! I wish to find a way to merge Score-Voting > and Majority-Judgement into something even better. > > In order to find something better, we would at least need to know what's wrong with what we have. There seems to be a lot of disagreement about that point; smart people can't agree on whether Score or MJ is better. So I think research is in order before we tear off and design 15 new systems. Jameson Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
