mindstalk: (Default)
mindstalk ([personal profile] mindstalk) wrote2019-11-26 11:21 pm

voting example

Poll on an imaginary election:

34 A > S > B > C
32 B > S > C > A
33 C > S > A > B
1 S > A > B > C

Of the four candidates, which do you think should win?
mtbc: photograph of me (Default)

[personal profile] mtbc 2019-11-26 01:24 pm (UTC)(link)
This is why I like approval voting; ranks make it too confusing for me to decide what to do! (But, given ranks, my default answer is probably: whatever the Debian folks would do. (-:)
kgbooklog: (Default)

[personal profile] kgbooklog 2019-11-26 02:21 pm (UTC)(link)
Who shuold win, or who WOULD win? The latter is C, 65 to 35 over A in the last round.

Most of the confusion comes from the lines being listed out of order.
elusiveat: (Default)

[personal profile] elusiveat 2019-11-26 04:56 pm (UTC)(link)
Probably needs some preference magnitudes to really be obvious, but I do see the case for S over A.
elusiveat: (Default)

[personal profile] elusiveat 2019-11-26 04:57 pm (UTC)(link)
I'm pretty sure that who *would* win depends on what voting system you're using. Mindstalk didn't specify.
elusiveat: (Default)

[personal profile] elusiveat 2019-11-26 05:06 pm (UTC)(link)
Occasionally when I am casting a vote for city council where you're supposed to vote for up to four candidates I find myself wondering if the strategic thing to do is to vote *only* for the non-incumbent candidate that I like, even though I also like several of the incumbents, on the basis that any vote I cast for a incumbent is likely to push my favorite person further down in the heap.

I feel like there could be a similar potential for trying to game the system with approval voting, although I have not checked how the numbers work out.
kgbooklog: (Default)

[personal profile] kgbooklog 2019-11-26 06:19 pm (UTC)(link)
I was assuming Instant Runoff, but if candidates are assigned points based on their ranking on each ballot, then I would expect S to win.

A only wins in First Past the Post.
elusiveat: (Default)

[personal profile] elusiveat 2019-11-26 07:41 pm (UTC)(link)
When I first looked over the options I kind of glossed the fact that almost no one was included in the last line.
Edited 2019-11-26 19:41 (UTC)
come_to_think: (Default)

[personal profile] come_to_think 2019-11-27 03:10 am (UTC)(link)
Keep in mind Arrow's impossibility theorem: There is *no* voting system that satisfies a short list of plausible-looking, indeed weak-looking, requirements.
mtbc: photograph of me (Default)

[personal profile] mtbc 2019-11-27 09:10 am (UTC)(link)
Ah, cool, thank you. It's usually at around the Schwartz set stuff in https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution#item-A that my eyes glaze over. (In this case I don't think we need that part.)
Edited 2019-11-27 09:12 (UTC)
elusiveat: (Default)

[personal profile] elusiveat 2019-11-27 06:12 pm (UTC)(link)
Condorcet or bust?