2011/6/25 Kristofer Munsterhjelm <km_el...@lavabit.com> > Warren Smith wrote: > >> I was contacted by a prestigious musical group to help them hold an >> election. >> The election data and results (pending rechecking & comments by you all) >> in anonymized form, are here: >> >> >> http://RangeVoting.org/**June2011RealWorldRRVvotes.txt<http://RangeVoting.org/June2011RealWorldRRVvotes.txt> >> >> Feel free to run your favorite alternative multiwinner election >> methods on same data >> & report the results. I used RRV, >> http://rangevoting.org/RRV.**html <http://rangevoting.org/RRV.html> >> >> >> > So I quickly hacked together something to run it through my old multiwinner > code, but I'm getting unusual results. Could someone check that they get > what I'm getting? > > {C101 C102 C103 C104 C105 C106 C108 C109 C110} for birational voting > {C101 C102 C103 C104 C105 C106 C108 C109 C110} for Range PAV (integral) > {C101 C102 C103 C105 C106 C108 C109 C110 C116} for STV > {C103 C106 C108 C109 C110 C111 C113 C115 C116} for Meek STV > {C103 C106 C109 C110 C111 C113 C114 C115 C116} for Schulze STV > {C103 C106 C109 C110 C111 C113 C114 C115 C116} for QPQ >
How are you handling ties in the STV methods? Just eyeballing it, it seems that your results are skewing towards the high-numbered candidates (who, in this election, seem to be weaker candidates - perhaps the ordering is in the order that they submitted statements, so the least-organized candidates come last?). And when I look at your ranked inferences, you do indeed put the highest-numbered candidate first, so I'm wondering if you're actually (mistakenly?) using "lexically-last" as an arbitrary tiebreaker for ballot equalities. Again, that's just from eyeballing, so I could be wrong. Jameson
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info