[EM] Fwd: Is it professional?
To: Benjamin Grant b...@4efix.com Most IRV in real world limits the rankings to 3 candidates per voter. In my approach, I treat the rankings as approval votes in the first round and tally up the number of times each candidate gets ranked to determine 3 finalists.There are 10 ways to rank 3 finalists so I sort the votes into these 10 categories, tally them up and use the info to have an instant runoff vote among the 3 finalists. Ben, this is the approach that I said gave the same result for all of the cases you brought up in your initial email to the list, which illustrated why you thought IRV was flawed. dlw Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Fwd: Is it professional?
So if I understand you: You have a single election. You permit people to rank up to 3 candidates, no more. You eliminate form consideration all but the top 3 people who were ranked, regardless of what rank they got. Then, with only those three left, you proceed to process them with standard IRV to find the winner. Is that a correct summation of you system, do I understand it right? On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:19 AM, David L Wetzell wetze...@gmail.comwrote: To: Benjamin Grant b...@4efix.com Most IRV in real world limits the rankings to 3 candidates per voter. In my approach, I treat the rankings as approval votes in the first round and tally up the number of times each candidate gets ranked to determine 3 finalists.There are 10 ways to rank 3 finalists so I sort the votes into these 10 categories, tally them up and use the info to have an instant runoff vote among the 3 finalists. Ben, this is the approach that I said gave the same result for all of the cases you brought up in your initial email to the list, which illustrated why you thought IRV was flawed. dlw 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] Fwd: Is it professional?
David L WetzellSent: Monday, June 24, 2013 4:19 PM Most IRV in real world limits the rankings to 3 candidates per voter. In real world? Evidence please - on a WORLD basis.. I have never encountered such limits in any IRV election. But then, I don't live in the USA. Some 3-only limits are imposed because of the limitations of the out-of-date equipment used to tally paper ballots. James Gilmour Edinburgh, Scotland --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 130624-1, 24/06/2013 Tested on: 24/06/2013 17:17:08 avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2013 AVAST Software. http://www.avast.com Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Fwd: Is it professional?
I limit the collection of ranking info to up to 3 rankings per voter, which is useful for practical purposes, and then treat the up to 3 rankings per voter as approval votes to determine which three of the umpteen candidates proceed. I then process those three with the standard IRV to find the winner. dlw dlw On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Benjamin Grant panjakr...@gmail.comwrote: So if I understand you: You have a single election. You permit people to rank up to 3 candidates, no more. You eliminate form consideration all but the top 3 people who were ranked, regardless of what rank they got. Then, with only those three left, you proceed to process them with standard IRV to find the winner. Is that a correct summation of you system, do I understand it right? On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:19 AM, David L Wetzell wetze...@gmail.comwrote: To: Benjamin Grant b...@4efix.com Most IRV in real world limits the rankings to 3 candidates per voter. In my approach, I treat the rankings as approval votes in the first round and tally up the number of times each candidate gets ranked to determine 3 finalists.There are 10 ways to rank 3 finalists so I sort the votes into these 10 categories, tally them up and use the info to have an instant runoff vote among the 3 finalists. Ben, this is the approach that I said gave the same result for all of the cases you brought up in your initial email to the list, which illustrated why you thought IRV was flawed. dlw 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] Fwd: Is it professional?
Isn't that what I said? If not, where did I get it wrong? -Benn Grant eFix Computer Consulting mailto:b...@4efix.com b...@4efix.com 603.283.6601 From: election-methods-boun...@lists.electorama.com [mailto:election-methods-boun...@lists.electorama.com] On Behalf Of David L Wetzell Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 12:20 PM To: Benjamin Grant Cc: EM Subject: Re: [EM] Fwd: Is it professional? I limit the collection of ranking info to up to 3 rankings per voter, which is useful for practical purposes, and then treat the up to 3 rankings per voter as approval votes to determine which three of the umpteen candidates proceed. I then process those three with the standard IRV to find the winner. dlw dlw On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Benjamin Grant panjakr...@gmail.com mailto:panjakr...@gmail.com wrote: So if I understand you: You have a single election. You permit people to rank up to 3 candidates, no more. You eliminate form consideration all but the top 3 people who were ranked, regardless of what rank they got. Then, with only those three left, you proceed to process them with standard IRV to find the winner. Is that a correct summation of you system, do I understand it right? On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:19 AM, David L Wetzell wetze...@gmail.com mailto:wetze...@gmail.com wrote: To: Benjamin Grant b...@4efix.com mailto:b...@4efix.com Most IRV in real world limits the rankings to 3 candidates per voter. In my approach, I treat the rankings as approval votes in the first round and tally up the number of times each candidate gets ranked to determine 3 finalists.There are 10 ways to rank 3 finalists so I sort the votes into these 10 categories, tally them up and use the info to have an instant runoff vote among the 3 finalists. Ben, this is the approach that I said gave the same result for all of the cases you brought up in your initial email to the list, which illustrated why you thought IRV was flawed. dlw 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] Fwd: Is it professional?
Ben: You eliminate form consideration all but the top 3 people who were ranked, regardless of what rank they got. dlw: This was unclear about how the top 3 were chosen. dlw On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Benjamin Grant b...@4efix.com wrote: Isn’t that what I said? If not, where did I get it wrong? ** ** -Benn Grant eFix Computer Consulting b...@4efix.com 603.283.6601 ** ** *From:* election-methods-boun...@lists.electorama.com [mailto: election-methods-boun...@lists.electorama.com] *On Behalf Of *David L Wetzell *Sent:* Monday, June 24, 2013 12:20 PM *To:* Benjamin Grant *Cc:* EM *Subject:* Re: [EM] Fwd: Is it professional? ** ** I limit the collection of ranking info to up to 3 rankings per voter, which is useful for practical purposes, and then treat the up to 3 rankings per voter as approval votes to determine which three of the umpteen candidates proceed. I then process those three with the standard IRV to find the winner. ** ** dlw dlw ** ** On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Benjamin Grant panjakr...@gmail.com wrote: So if I understand you: ** ** You have a single election. You permit people to rank up to 3 candidates, no more. You eliminate form consideration all but the top 3 people who were ranked, regardless of what rank they got. Then, with only those three left, you proceed to process them with standard IRV to find the winner.*** * ** ** Is that a correct summation of you system, do I understand it right? ** ** On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:19 AM, David L Wetzell wetze...@gmail.com wrote: To: Benjamin Grant b...@4efix.com ** ** Most IRV in real world limits the rankings to 3 candidates per voter. In my approach, I treat the rankings as approval votes in the first round and tally up the number of times each candidate gets ranked to determine 3 finalists.There are 10 ways to rank 3 finalists so I sort the votes into these 10 categories, tally them up and use the info to have an instant runoff vote among the 3 finalists. Ben, this is the approach that I said gave the same result for all of the cases you brought up in your initial email to the list, which illustrated why you thought IRV was flawed. dlw ** ** ** ** 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] Fwd: Is it professional?
Let me try again, because I want to make sure I get what you are trying to communicate. 1) People vote from the pool of all candidate, for their top 3, ranked. For example, Candidate 1: 1st place, Candidate 2, 3rd place, C3, no place, C4, no place, C5, 2nd place, and the rest of the cnadidates, no place. 2) Each candidate who got ANY rank place (of the three) gets a +1 point per ballot they got ranked on. We know throw out all but the candidates with the top three point scores. 3) Now, we use the ballots to conduct an IRV style algorithm with the three remaining candidates and determine the winner. If I *now* got that right, it seems to me that if there are, for example, ten candidates, and if I choose three and NONE of the three I chose make it to the final three, then my ballot is irrelevant in choosing which of the final 3 I preferred. Therefor there would be a STRONG strategic reason to make SURE that at least one of the three I rank would be favored to make it to the final IRV round - which diverges from the possible sincere vote. -Benn Grant. On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 12:31 PM, David L Wetzell wetze...@gmail.comwrote: Ben: You eliminate form consideration all but the top 3 people who were ranked, regardless of what rank they got. dlw: This was unclear about how the top 3 were chosen. dlw On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Benjamin Grant b...@4efix.com wrote: Isn’t that what I said? If not, where did I get it wrong? ** ** -Benn Grant eFix Computer Consulting b...@4efix.com 603.283.6601 ** ** *From:* election-methods-boun...@lists.electorama.com [mailto: election-methods-boun...@lists.electorama.com] *On Behalf Of *David L Wetzell *Sent:* Monday, June 24, 2013 12:20 PM *To:* Benjamin Grant *Cc:* EM *Subject:* Re: [EM] Fwd: Is it professional? ** ** I limit the collection of ranking info to up to 3 rankings per voter, which is useful for practical purposes, and then treat the up to 3 rankings per voter as approval votes to determine which three of the umpteen candidates proceed. I then process those three with the standard IRV to find the winner. ** ** dlw dlw ** ** On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Benjamin Grant panjakr...@gmail.com wrote: So if I understand you: ** ** You have a single election. You permit people to rank up to 3 candidates, no more. You eliminate form consideration all but the top 3 people who were ranked, regardless of what rank they got. Then, with only those three left, you proceed to process them with standard IRV to find the winner.** ** ** ** Is that a correct summation of you system, do I understand it right? ** ** On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:19 AM, David L Wetzell wetze...@gmail.com wrote: To: Benjamin Grant b...@4efix.com ** ** Most IRV in real world limits the rankings to 3 candidates per voter. In my approach, I treat the rankings as approval votes in the first round and tally up the number of times each candidate gets ranked to determine 3 finalists.There are 10 ways to rank 3 finalists so I sort the votes into these 10 categories, tally them up and use the info to have an instant runoff vote among the 3 finalists. Ben, this is the approach that I said gave the same result for all of the cases you brought up in your initial email to the list, which illustrated why you thought IRV was flawed. dlw ** ** ** ** 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] Fwd: Is it professional?
Hi Ben, 1) they get to vote or rank up to 3 candidates. If someone only wants one candidate to win they need not rank others or if they only had time to learn about two or three and only really liked one or two of those candidates then they could rank one or two of them. 2 and 3 are right. Yes, if your top 3 were not among the top 3 for everyone then your vote would count in the first stage, not the final stage. And yes that could lead to some strategic voting, but there'd be less of such. And this would not be a common phenomenon if the top 3 are genuinely more competitive candidates. In Warren's example, only 2/37 votes didn't have one of the top 3 candidates among their top three candidates. That's basically 5.4% and that was with a system where all seven candidates had a priori equal chances of being the final winner, not a realistic assumption. dlw dlw On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Benjamin Grant panjakr...@gmail.comwrote: Let me try again, because I want to make sure I get what you are trying to communicate. 1) People vote from the pool of all candidate, for their top 3, ranked. For example, Candidate 1: 1st place, Candidate 2, 3rd place, C3, no place, C4, no place, C5, 2nd place, and the rest of the cnadidates, no place. 2) Each candidate who got ANY rank place (of the three) gets a +1 point per ballot they got ranked on. We know throw out all but the candidates with the top three point scores. 3) Now, we use the ballots to conduct an IRV style algorithm with the three remaining candidates and determine the winner. If I *now* got that right, it seems to me that if there are, for example, ten candidates, and if I choose three and NONE of the three I chose make it to the final three, then my ballot is irrelevant in choosing which of the final 3 I preferred. Therefor there would be a STRONG strategic reason to make SURE that at least one of the three I rank would be favored to make it to the final IRV round - which diverges from the possible sincere vote. -Benn Grant. On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 12:31 PM, David L Wetzell wetze...@gmail.comwrote: Ben: You eliminate form consideration all but the top 3 people who were ranked, regardless of what rank they got. dlw: This was unclear about how the top 3 were chosen. dlw On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Benjamin Grant b...@4efix.com wrote: Isn’t that what I said? If not, where did I get it wrong? ** ** -Benn Grant eFix Computer Consulting b...@4efix.com 603.283.6601 ** ** *From:* election-methods-boun...@lists.electorama.com [mailto: election-methods-boun...@lists.electorama.com] *On Behalf Of *David L Wetzell *Sent:* Monday, June 24, 2013 12:20 PM *To:* Benjamin Grant *Cc:* EM *Subject:* Re: [EM] Fwd: Is it professional? ** ** I limit the collection of ranking info to up to 3 rankings per voter, which is useful for practical purposes, and then treat the up to 3 rankings per voter as approval votes to determine which three of the umpteen candidates proceed. I then process those three with the standard IRV to find the winner. ** ** dlw dlw ** ** On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Benjamin Grant panjakr...@gmail.com wrote: So if I understand you: ** ** You have a single election. You permit people to rank up to 3 candidates, no more. You eliminate form consideration all but the top 3 people who were ranked, regardless of what rank they got. Then, with only those three left, you proceed to process them with standard IRV to find the winner. ** ** Is that a correct summation of you system, do I understand it right? ** ** On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:19 AM, David L Wetzell wetze...@gmail.com wrote: To: Benjamin Grant b...@4efix.com ** ** Most IRV in real world limits the rankings to 3 candidates per voter. In my approach, I treat the rankings as approval votes in the first round and tally up the number of times each candidate gets ranked to determine 3 finalists.There are 10 ways to rank 3 finalists so I sort the votes into these 10 categories, tally them up and use the info to have an instant runoff vote among the 3 finalists. Ben, this is the approach that I said gave the same result for all of the cases you brought up in your initial email to the list, which illustrated why you thought IRV was flawed. dlw ** ** ** ** Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info ** ** ** ** Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
