[EM] SODA clarification

2011-07-06 Thread Andy Jennings
Jameson,

I have become confused about one point of operation in SODA.  Take this
scenario:

35 A>B>C
34 B>C>A
31 C>A>B

If A delegates to A,B then does B have 69 votes he can delegate to B,C or
does he have only 34 he can play with?

In other words, can votes delegated from one candidate to another be
re-delegated to a third candidate?

I looked at the wiki and still am unclear on this.  I still have the
original SODA proposal in my head (where votes could not be delegated
multiple times) and I can't remember if we've changed this detail at some
point.

Thanks,

Andy



On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:

> Russ, you said that SODA was too complicated. In my prior message, I
> responded by saying that it was actually pretty simple. But thanks for your
> feedback; I realize that the SODA page was not conveying that simplicity
> well. I've changed the procedure there from 8 individual steps to 4 steps -
> simple one-sentence overviews - with the details in sub-steps. Of these 4
> steps, only step 1 is not in your proposal. And the whole of step 4 is just
> three words.
>
> The procedure is exactly the same, but I hope that this 
> versiondoes
>  a better job of communicating the purpose and underlying simplicity of
> the system.
>
> Thanks,
> 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] SODA clarification

2011-07-06 Thread Jameson Quinn
2011/7/6 Andy Jennings 

> Jameson,
>
> I have become confused about one point of operation in SODA.  Take this
> scenario:
>
> 35 A>B>C
> 34 B>C>A
> 31 C>A>B
>
> If A delegates to A,B then does B have 69 votes he can delegate to B,C or
> does he have only 34 he can play with?
>
> In other words, can votes delegated from one candidate to another be
> re-delegated to a third candidate?
>

B has 34. Delegable votes are only bullet votes. In fact, a real SODA
scenario would probably be more like:

25 A (>B)
5 A,X
5 A,B
26 B (>C)
4 B,X
4 B, C
29 C (>A)
1 C,X
1 C,A
Initial totals: 36A, 39B, 35C
Delegable: 25A, 26B, 29C

Note that in this example, C has the most delegable votes and would decide
delegation first, even though B has the most total initial votes. In this
case - a Condorcet cycle - the result would be the same no matter who
delegates first, as long as all candidates use correct strategy. But there
are cases where it wouldn't be:

25: Left (>X)
15: Left, Center
5: Left, Right
25: Center (>Right)
30: Right (>Center)

The candidate Left has not declared any delegable preferences, but the left
voters clearly tend to prefer Center over Right. Center is the Condorcet
winner, but Right would get the chance to delegate before Center, and thus
would be the strategic winner under SODA. If delegation order went in order
of total votes instead of delegable votes, Center would win.

Hmm... now that I look at this scenario in black and white, I'm starting to
think that delegation order should be in order of total, not delegable,
votes. Not that there isn't a case to be made for Right in this election; if
Center were really a better result, then they should get either Left's
delegation or more delegable votes from the nominally voters who chose
[Left, Center] here. This argument like FairVote's handwaving arguments
about "strength" of support - which is not necessarily invalid just because
it's imprecise and easy to reduce ad absurdem. But... I think that having
this scenario go to Right puts too much of a burden of strategic calculation
on the [Left, Center] voters.

So, yet another adjustment to SODA, I think. Delegation choice goes in
descending order of total votes; the person with the most total votes gets
the "first move". If my grounded intuition is correct, this should not
matter when there's a 3-way cycle, only when there's a pairwise champion
(CW).

Hopefully this will be the last time I have to adjust SODA. Also note that
all the adjustments so far have been minor tweaks; any of the versions so
far would work well, though I believe they have been steadily improving.
Current rules, as always, are at
http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/Simple_Optionally-Delegated_Approval

JQ


> I looked at the wiki and still am unclear on this.  I still have the
> original SODA proposal in my head (where votes could not be delegated
> multiple times) and I can't remember if we've changed this detail at some
> point.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Andy
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
>
>> Russ, you said that SODA was too complicated. In my prior message, I
>> responded by saying that it was actually pretty simple. But thanks for your
>> feedback; I realize that the SODA page was not conveying that simplicity
>> well. I've changed the procedure there from 8 individual steps to 4 steps -
>> simple one-sentence overviews - with the details in sub-steps. Of these 4
>> steps, only step 1 is not in your proposal. And the whole of step 4 is just
>> three words.
>>
>> The procedure is exactly the same, but I hope that this 
>> versiondoes
>>  a better job of communicating the purpose and underlying simplicity of
>> the system.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> 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] SODA clarification

2011-07-07 Thread Andy Jennings
Jameson,

I'm really liking the SODA method that is evolving.  I have a couple of
cosmetic suggestions:

First, in the description of SODA, I dislike using the term "delegate" for
step 3, candidate-to-candidate transfers.  I would only use the word
"delegate" for step 2, the bullet voters' votes getting delegated to their
candidates.  I prefer to think of step 3 as the candidates "casting" their
votes (which includes all the delegated votes they control).  It's a much
simpler mental model for me.  Since they aren't passing anything on to
another candidate which can be changed or controlled, I don't consider it
delegation.  Also, it decreases the implication of smoke-filled rooms (for
me) to have as little "delegation" as possible.  I think this terminology
was why I was confused about step 3 in a prior email.

Second, I find it incredibly confusing to say you have to write in "do not
delegate" if you bullet vote and you don't want your vote delegated.  I
realize that you want delegation to be the default for bullet voters.  Why
not organize the ballot with that as a separate question (as follows)?


"Vote for as many candidates as you approve:"

[ ] Candidate A
[ ] Candidate B
[ ] Candidate C
[ ] Candidate D
[ ] ___(write-in)_
[ ] ___(write-in)_
[ ] ___(write-in)_

"If you only vote for one candidate, he can choose to transfer his vote to
one or more alternate candidates in the event that he cannot win, UNLESS you
check the box below:"

[ ] Do not let the candidate I voted for transfer my vote to other
candidates


Andy




On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Jameson Quinn wrote:

>
>
> 2011/7/6 Andy Jennings 
>
>> Jameson,
>>
>> I have become confused about one point of operation in SODA.  Take this
>> scenario:
>>
>> 35 A>B>C
>> 34 B>C>A
>> 31 C>A>B
>>
>> If A delegates to A,B then does B have 69 votes he can delegate to B,C or
>> does he have only 34 he can play with?
>>
>> In other words, can votes delegated from one candidate to another be
>> re-delegated to a third candidate?
>>
>
> B has 34. Delegable votes are only bullet votes. In fact, a real SODA
> scenario would probably be more like:
>
> 25 A (>B)
> 5 A,X
> 5 A,B
>  26 B (>C)
> 4 B,X
> 4 B, C
> 29 C (>A)
> 1 C,X
> 1 C,A
> Initial totals: 36A, 39B, 35C
> Delegable: 25A, 26B, 29C
>
> Note that in this example, C has the most delegable votes and would decide
> delegation first, even though B has the most total initial votes. In this
> case - a Condorcet cycle - the result would be the same no matter who
> delegates first, as long as all candidates use correct strategy. But there
> are cases where it wouldn't be:
>
> 25: Left (>X)
> 15: Left, Center
> 5: Left, Right
> 25: Center (>Right)
> 30: Right (>Center)
>
> The candidate Left has not declared any delegable preferences, but the left
> voters clearly tend to prefer Center over Right. Center is the Condorcet
> winner, but Right would get the chance to delegate before Center, and thus
> would be the strategic winner under SODA. If delegation order went in order
> of total votes instead of delegable votes, Center would win.
>
> Hmm... now that I look at this scenario in black and white, I'm starting to
> think that delegation order should be in order of total, not delegable,
> votes. Not that there isn't a case to be made for Right in this election; if
> Center were really a better result, then they should get either Left's
> delegation or more delegable votes from the nominally voters who chose
> [Left, Center] here. This argument like FairVote's handwaving arguments
> about "strength" of support - which is not necessarily invalid just because
> it's imprecise and easy to reduce ad absurdem. But... I think that having
> this scenario go to Right puts too much of a burden of strategic calculation
> on the [Left, Center] voters.
>
> So, yet another adjustment to SODA, I think. Delegation choice goes in
> descending order of total votes; the person with the most total votes gets
> the "first move". If my grounded intuition is correct, this should not
> matter when there's a 3-way cycle, only when there's a pairwise champion
> (CW).
>
> Hopefully this will be the last time I have to adjust SODA. Also note that
> all the adjustments so far have been minor tweaks; any of the versions so
> far would work well, though I believe they have been steadily improving.
> Current rules, as always, are at
> http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/Simple_Optionally-Delegated_Approval
>
> JQ
>
>
>> I looked at the wiki and still am unclear on this.  I still have the
>> original SODA proposal in my head (where votes could not be delegated
>> multiple times) and I can't remember if we've changed this detail at some
>> point.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Andy
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Jameson Quinn 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Russ, you said that SODA was too complicated. In my prior message, I
>>> responded by saying that it was actually pretty simple. But thanks for your
>>> feedback; I reali

Re: [EM] SODA clarification

2011-07-07 Thread Jameson Quinn
Andy, I like both of your suggestions. Why don't you try putting them on the
page 
yourself?
I don't want this system or that page to be "mine", I just want
them to be good.

2011/7/7 Andy Jennings 

> Jameson,
>
> I'm really liking the SODA method that is evolving.  I have a couple of
> cosmetic suggestions:
>
> First, in the description of SODA, I dislike using the term "delegate" for
> step 3, candidate-to-candidate transfers.  I would only use the word
> "delegate" for step 2, the bullet voters' votes getting delegated to their
> candidates.  I prefer to think of step 3 as the candidates "casting" their
> votes (which includes all the delegated votes they control).  It's a much
> simpler mental model for me.  Since they aren't passing anything on to
> another candidate which can be changed or controlled, I don't consider it
> delegation.  Also, it decreases the implication of smoke-filled rooms (for
> me) to have as little "delegation" as possible.  I think this terminology
> was why I was confused about step 3 in a prior email.
>
> Second, I find it incredibly confusing to say you have to write in "do not
> delegate" if you bullet vote and you don't want your vote delegated.  I
> realize that you want delegation to be the default for bullet voters.  Why
> not organize the ballot with that as a separate question (as follows)?
>
> 
> "Vote for as many candidates as you approve:"
>
> [ ] Candidate A
> [ ] Candidate B
> [ ] Candidate C
> [ ] Candidate D
> [ ] ___(write-in)_
> [ ] ___(write-in)_
> [ ] ___(write-in)_
>
> "If you only vote for one candidate, he can choose to transfer his vote to
> one or more alternate candidates in the event that he cannot win, UNLESS you
> check the box below:"
>
> [ ] Do not let the candidate I voted for transfer my vote to other
> candidates
> 
>
> Andy
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 2011/7/6 Andy Jennings 
>>
>>> Jameson,
>>>
>>> I have become confused about one point of operation in SODA.  Take this
>>> scenario:
>>>
>>> 35 A>B>C
>>> 34 B>C>A
>>> 31 C>A>B
>>>
>>> If A delegates to A,B then does B have 69 votes he can delegate to B,C or
>>> does he have only 34 he can play with?
>>>
>>> In other words, can votes delegated from one candidate to another be
>>> re-delegated to a third candidate?
>>>
>>
>> B has 34. Delegable votes are only bullet votes. In fact, a real SODA
>> scenario would probably be more like:
>>
>> 25 A (>B)
>> 5 A,X
>> 5 A,B
>>  26 B (>C)
>> 4 B,X
>> 4 B, C
>> 29 C (>A)
>> 1 C,X
>> 1 C,A
>> Initial totals: 36A, 39B, 35C
>> Delegable: 25A, 26B, 29C
>>
>> Note that in this example, C has the most delegable votes and would decide
>> delegation first, even though B has the most total initial votes. In this
>> case - a Condorcet cycle - the result would be the same no matter who
>> delegates first, as long as all candidates use correct strategy. But there
>> are cases where it wouldn't be:
>>
>> 25: Left (>X)
>> 15: Left, Center
>> 5: Left, Right
>> 25: Center (>Right)
>> 30: Right (>Center)
>>
>> The candidate Left has not declared any delegable preferences, but the
>> left voters clearly tend to prefer Center over Right. Center is the
>> Condorcet winner, but Right would get the chance to delegate before Center,
>> and thus would be the strategic winner under SODA. If delegation order went
>> in order of total votes instead of delegable votes, Center would win.
>>
>> Hmm... now that I look at this scenario in black and white, I'm starting
>> to think that delegation order should be in order of total, not delegable,
>> votes. Not that there isn't a case to be made for Right in this election; if
>> Center were really a better result, then they should get either Left's
>> delegation or more delegable votes from the nominally voters who chose
>> [Left, Center] here. This argument like FairVote's handwaving arguments
>> about "strength" of support - which is not necessarily invalid just because
>> it's imprecise and easy to reduce ad absurdem. But... I think that having
>> this scenario go to Right puts too much of a burden of strategic calculation
>> on the [Left, Center] voters.
>>
>> So, yet another adjustment to SODA, I think. Delegation choice goes in
>> descending order of total votes; the person with the most total votes gets
>> the "first move". If my grounded intuition is correct, this should not
>> matter when there's a 3-way cycle, only when there's a pairwise champion
>> (CW).
>>
>> Hopefully this will be the last time I have to adjust SODA. Also note that
>> all the adjustments so far have been minor tweaks; any of the versions so
>> far would work well, though I believe they have been steadily improving.
>> Current rules, as always, are at
>> http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/Simple_Optionally-Delegated_Approval
>>
>> JQ
>>
>>
>>> I looked at the wiki and still am unclear on this.  I still have the
>

Re: [EM] SODA clarification

2011-07-07 Thread Andy Jennings
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 8:33 AM, Jameson Quinn wrote:

> Andy, I like both of your suggestions. Why don't you try putting them on the
> pageyourself?
>  I don't want this system or that page to be "mine", I just want
> them to be good.
>
>
Okay, I changed the Wiki.  I'll try to give it a second look tomorrow to see
if I want to re-word anything.



>
> 2011/7/7 Andy Jennings 
>
>> Jameson,
>>
>> I'm really liking the SODA method that is evolving.  I have a couple of
>> cosmetic suggestions:
>>
>> First, in the description of SODA, I dislike using the term "delegate" for
>> step 3, candidate-to-candidate transfers.  I would only use the word
>> "delegate" for step 2, the bullet voters' votes getting delegated to their
>> candidates.  I prefer to think of step 3 as the candidates "casting" their
>> votes (which includes all the delegated votes they control).  It's a much
>> simpler mental model for me.  Since they aren't passing anything on to
>> another candidate which can be changed or controlled, I don't consider it
>> delegation.  Also, it decreases the implication of smoke-filled rooms (for
>> me) to have as little "delegation" as possible.  I think this terminology
>> was why I was confused about step 3 in a prior email.
>>
>> Second, I find it incredibly confusing to say you have to write in "do not
>> delegate" if you bullet vote and you don't want your vote delegated.  I
>> realize that you want delegation to be the default for bullet voters.  Why
>> not organize the ballot with that as a separate question (as follows)?
>>
>> 
>> "Vote for as many candidates as you approve:"
>>
>> [ ] Candidate A
>> [ ] Candidate B
>> [ ] Candidate C
>> [ ] Candidate D
>> [ ] ___(write-in)_
>> [ ] ___(write-in)_
>> [ ] ___(write-in)_
>>
>> "If you only vote for one candidate, he can choose to transfer his vote to
>> one or more alternate candidates in the event that he cannot win, UNLESS you
>> check the box below:"
>>
>> [ ] Do not let the candidate I voted for transfer my vote to other
>> candidates
>> 
>>
>> Andy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2011/7/6 Andy Jennings 
>>>
 Jameson,

 I have become confused about one point of operation in SODA.  Take this
 scenario:

 35 A>B>C
 34 B>C>A
 31 C>A>B

 If A delegates to A,B then does B have 69 votes he can delegate to B,C
 or does he have only 34 he can play with?

 In other words, can votes delegated from one candidate to another be
 re-delegated to a third candidate?

>>>
>>> B has 34. Delegable votes are only bullet votes. In fact, a real SODA
>>> scenario would probably be more like:
>>>
>>> 25 A (>B)
>>> 5 A,X
>>> 5 A,B
>>>  26 B (>C)
>>> 4 B,X
>>> 4 B, C
>>> 29 C (>A)
>>> 1 C,X
>>> 1 C,A
>>> Initial totals: 36A, 39B, 35C
>>> Delegable: 25A, 26B, 29C
>>>
>>> Note that in this example, C has the most delegable votes and would
>>> decide delegation first, even though B has the most total initial votes. In
>>> this case - a Condorcet cycle - the result would be the same no matter who
>>> delegates first, as long as all candidates use correct strategy. But there
>>> are cases where it wouldn't be:
>>>
>>> 25: Left (>X)
>>> 15: Left, Center
>>> 5: Left, Right
>>> 25: Center (>Right)
>>> 30: Right (>Center)
>>>
>>> The candidate Left has not declared any delegable preferences, but the
>>> left voters clearly tend to prefer Center over Right. Center is the
>>> Condorcet winner, but Right would get the chance to delegate before Center,
>>> and thus would be the strategic winner under SODA. If delegation order went
>>> in order of total votes instead of delegable votes, Center would win.
>>>
>>> Hmm... now that I look at this scenario in black and white, I'm starting
>>> to think that delegation order should be in order of total, not delegable,
>>> votes. Not that there isn't a case to be made for Right in this election; if
>>> Center were really a better result, then they should get either Left's
>>> delegation or more delegable votes from the nominally voters who chose
>>> [Left, Center] here. This argument like FairVote's handwaving arguments
>>> about "strength" of support - which is not necessarily invalid just because
>>> it's imprecise and easy to reduce ad absurdem. But... I think that having
>>> this scenario go to Right puts too much of a burden of strategic calculation
>>> on the [Left, Center] voters.
>>>
>>> So, yet another adjustment to SODA, I think. Delegation choice goes in
>>> descending order of total votes; the person with the most total votes gets
>>> the "first move". If my grounded intuition is correct, this should not
>>> matter when there's a 3-way cycle, only when there's a pairwise champion
>>> (CW).
>>>
>>> Hopefully this will be the last time I have to adjust SODA. Also note
>>> that all the adjustments so far have been minor tweak