Re: Robonson wins; Debian v monotonicity (was Re: Some analysis of DPL 2003 results
Drake Diedrich wrote: On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 09:46:06PM +1200, Craig Carey wrote: [something or other] If this was a real post and not a troll ... you need to be a *bit* less emphatic with your opinions and more clear with your justifications. The modification of IRV to handle equally ranked ballots was clear, but pretty irrelevant with respect to the validity of Debian's Condorcet method. When I said I'm not trying to kick up any dust, I meant it. As many have pointed out, the results are evidence that the system worked. If you are wondering whether or not Craig's post is a troll, I think that depends on your point of view. I'm certain that Craig is expressing his sincere opinion. He's got a long and illustrious history posting to the election-methods list which ... speaks for itself: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/election-methods-list/messagesearch?query=Carey I'm particularly fond of the message from a couple of years ago titled: More falsity: Concavity is what we want, better that than a triangle The subject says all. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/election-methods-list/message/8171 Rob
Robonson wins; Debian v monotonicity (was Re: Some analysis of DPL 2003 results
This is a lengthy argument against the current Debian problem of
wrongly rejecting Mr Branden Robinson who would almost certainly be
the winner if the method of the last election was maximally proportional
(and passing P2) and monotonic. I.e. the method then is almost the
smallest adjustment that 'debugs' the unfair Alternative Vote method.
Below I suggest a replacement for the Debian Condorcet voting system,
In this election a monotonic method passing my P2 would make the winners
be one of these sets: {}, {A}, {A,B}, {A,B,C}
3 ABC
2 CAB
2 BCA
For the 1 case, B and C lose since under the 1/3 quota. then
At 2003\04\20 02:29 -0700 Sunday, Rob Lanphier wrote:
Hi all,
Being the election methods geek that I am, I decided to do some analysis
of the last DPL election. I've posted the results of this here:
http://electorama.com/modules.php?op=modloadname=Newsfile=articlesid=32
I ran through a few scenarios using Instant Runoff Voting to tally the
Both Robs use the same noun phrase.
votes instead of using Condorcet. The result depended on whether tied
ballots are allowed. Allowing for tied ballots (and improvising a way
to deal with them), Martin Michlmayr still wins the election. However,
strictly following the rules that were just enacted in San Francisco for
future mayorial elections, Branden Robinson would have won.
At any rate, I'm not trying to kick up any dust or call the legitimate
results into question. My take is that the analysis seem to further
legitimize the results.
Well, that is a big error: the winner was incorrect.
The San Francisco method is not the best.
(I agree that the Alternative Vote finds Mr Martin Michlmayr to be the
winner.)
At 03\04\20 13:27 -0400 Sunday, David Z Maze wrote:
David Weinehall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 02:29:16AM -0700, Rob Lanphier wrote:
http://electorama.com/modules.php?op=modloadname=Newsfile=articlesid=32
Interesting reading, although I don't know what I should make out of
this sentence:
What complicates this is that the ballot allows for multiple first
choices. Relatively few Debian developers did this though (453 of the
488 total votes).
I think you missed a sentence; my reading of the relevant paragraph is
relatively few developers had multiple first-choice votes; thus,
Table 1 has the 453/488 votes with only one first-choice vote.
The ties can be easily dealt with by smudging the weight of the paper out
over the permutations that would eliminate a tie of the preferences.
E.g.
Candidate: ABCDE
Rank.: 1222-
Paper = (1/4)( (ABCD)+(ABDC)+(ACBD)+(ACDB)+(ADBC)+(ADCB) )
It seems to make no difference if plain Condorcet is used even but it
could have an effect when a patched in part of the whichever
pairwisingish algorithm being run:
| Counts after using permuting.
|
| . . 2. 3. 4. The figures here : 3--2--4--3
| 2. . 250 238
| 3 233. . 235
| 4 242 246
|
| The official results, taken from
| . http://www.debian.org/vote/2003/vote_0001
|
| . . 2. 3. 4. Official : Official 3--2--4--3
| 2. . 238 224
| 3 221. . 226
| 4 228 237
The fraction of votes affected by the smudging resolution of ties on
preferences was a lot greater (in the last Debian election) than the
percentage needed to undo a victory of the winner.
Somehow the methods are insensitive to whether that permuting was
done or not.
It may have to do with passing P2.
P2 saying things including this:
the winners are unaffected by the change 2(A)-(AB)-(AC) results in
an implausible preferential voting method):
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/politicians-and-polytopes/message/226
From: Craig Carey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri Apr 4, 2003 9:41 am
Subject: P2 Linearity, an essential axiom in 3W1 preferential voting
Maybe Condorcet passes P2.
Likers of Condorcet maybe would not mention that pass.
Also I derive a fair 1/3 quota for losers here:
http://www.ijs.co.nz/quota-13.htm
PS. Mr Voss suggests that Condorcet is good (which is false) and that
Debian has ... a good method and incorrectly Mr Voss says that Condorcet
is monotonic which is really untrue:
http://www.mathematik.uni-kl.de/~wwwstoch/voss/comp/vote.html
The Debian Voting System
...
Good properties of Condorcet voting (summarised from
http://electionmethods.org/evaluation.htm):
Monotonicity Criterion (MC)
With the relative order or rating of the other candidates
unchanged, voting a candidate higher should never cause the
candidate to lose, nor should voting a candidate lower ever cause
the candidate to win.
voting a candidate higher means shifting the single preference towards
the 1st preference or putting it there.
The rule is one that fails Condorcet variants and the plain Condorcet
method samples the method in a Condorcet paradox region. Rather than
decide over 3 valued Booleans, either the rule or method could be
corrected. Anyway, I'd have plain Condorcet would fail the monotonicity
check.
Re: Robonson wins; Debian v monotonicity (was Re: Some analysis of DPL 2003 results
On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 09:46:06PM +1200, Craig Carey wrote: This is a lengthy argument against the current Debian problem of wrongly rejecting Mr Branden Robinson who would almost certainly be the winner if the method of the last election was maximally proportional (and passing P2) and monotonic. I.e. the method then is almost the smallest adjustment that 'debugs' the unfair Alternative Vote method. argument against .. Debian problem. By your argument Debian has no problem? I'm still trying to decide whether the first two lines above can be read two ways or not. I'll tentatively congratulate you on a well constructed troll, but rise to the bait anyway. :) This DPL election will probably make an interesting case for the election reform movement: where a strict IRV vote (discarding some valid Condorcet votes in favor of only linearly-ranked votes) would have selected one candidate (B) when the majority would have preferred another (M). Having three strong candidates, and no clear linear relation between them all is very real-world, reflecting candidates and an electorate who have more than a single issue in mind. The first time IRV selects a candidate who does not have popular (if not extreme) support will probably also be it's last time, and probably be such an ugly mess that election reform in the U.S. will be set back a generation or two, and (if not already at rock bottom) further erode the public's faith in the electoral system. In the case of a volunteer association, it would probably have a negative impact on the membership rolls. Those who argue that IRV encourages voter turnout in Australia may be unaware that election officials go door to door after major elections handing out $100 citations unless you can come up with a really good reason. Not Australian works. Turnout under duress isn't all that interesting a figure on the merit of an election system. More than half of the Australians I knew were pretty unhappy with their elected representatives. I'm not sure that's even better than plurality. None were suspicious of their electoral system, but I suspect that's more a difference between Australians and Americans rather than a difference between IRV and plurality voting systems. smudging the weight of the paper. This is like the essay grading technique - throwing them down a staircase and grading based on how far they go? I really like the arguments like the bad election method is bad. If this was a real post and not a troll ... you need to be a *bit* less emphatic with your opinions and more clear with your justifications. The modification of IRV to handle equally ranked ballots was clear, but pretty irrelevant with respect to the validity of Debian's Condorcet method. -Drake [just a Debian voter who was satisfied with the results and saw no problem]
Some analysis of DPL 2003 results
Hi all, Being the election methods geek that I am, I decided to do some analysis of the last DPL election. I've posted the results of this here: http://electorama.com/modules.php?op=modloadname=Newsfile=articlesid=32 I ran through a few scenarios using Instant Runoff Voting to tally the votes instead of using Condorcet. The result depended on whether tied ballots are allowed. Allowing for tied ballots (and improvising a way to deal with them), Martin Michlmayr still wins the election. However, strictly following the rules that were just enacted in San Francisco for future mayorial elections, Branden Robinson would have won. At any rate, I'm not trying to kick up any dust or call the legitimate results into question. My take is that the analysis seem to further legitimize the results. Anyway, enjoy. Let me know if you have questions. Rob Lanphier http://electorama.com (not wearing his Helix Community hat this weekend)
Re: Some analysis of DPL 2003 results
On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 02:29:16AM -0700, Rob Lanphier wrote: Hi all, Being the election methods geek that I am, I decided to do some analysis of the last DPL election. I've posted the results of this here: http://electorama.com/modules.php?op=modloadname=Newsfile=articlesid=32 [snip] Interesting reading, although I don't know what I should make out of this sentence: What complicates this is that the ballot allows for multiple first choices. Relatively few Debian developers did this though (453 of the 488 total votes). I'd say that 453 out of 488 is quite a lot, not relatively few, so something seems to be amiss here, huh? Regards: David Weinehall -- / David Weinehall [EMAIL PROTECTED] / Northern lights wander \ // Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky // \ http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao// Full colour fire /
Re: Some analysis of DPL 2003 results
David Weinehall wrote: Interesting reading, although I don't know what I should make out of this sentence: What complicates this is that the ballot allows for multiple first choices. Relatively few Debian developers did this though (453 of the 488 total votes). I'd say that 453 out of 488 is quite a lot, not relatively few, so something seems to be amiss here, huh? Good catch. Only 35 of the voters actually marked multiple choices. I've modified the text as follows: Relatively few Debian developers did this though. Thus, Table 1 contains most of the voters (453 of the 488 total votes). Thanks Rob
Re: Some analysis of DPL 2003 results
David Weinehall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 02:29:16AM -0700, Rob Lanphier wrote: http://electorama.com/modules.php?op=modloadname=Newsfile=articlesid=32 Interesting reading, although I don't know what I should make out of this sentence: What complicates this is that the ballot allows for multiple first choices. Relatively few Debian developers did this though (453 of the 488 total votes). I think you missed a sentence; my reading of the relevant paragraph is relatively few developers had multiple first-choice votes; thus, Table 1 has the 453/488 votes with only one first-choice vote. -- David Maze [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://people.debian.org/~dmaze/ Theoretical politics is interesting. Politicking should be illegal. -- Abra Mitchell
