Below is a draft of a first round proposal for a single general-election voting method replacement. Comments humbly requested. Could the explanation be made any clearer?
As discussed previously, Definite Majority Choice (hat-tip to Forest for the name) is just another name for Ranked Approval Voting (RAV), Approval Runoff Condorcet (ARC), and finds the same winner as Pairwise Sorted Approval. I believe that it finds the same winner as both Ranked Pairs and Beatpath when defeat strength is measured by the Approval of the pairwise winner. Among non-eliminated candidates, there are no pairwise cycles, thus removing the biggest objection of IRV advocates to Condorcet methods. Note that Pairwise Sorting on a previously seeded ordering is also known as Local Kemenization and is used in Rank Aggregation methods -- see, e.g., http://www10.org/cdrom/papers/577/. So if all else fails, you could say that DMC finds the Google winner! Credits: Forest Simmons, Jobst Heitzig, Russ Paielli, Chris Benham, Kevin Venzke, and of course Steve Eppley, Markus Schulze and Mike Ossipoff. Anybody else I should cite? Who first proposed Graded Ballots? Adam Tarr? -- Ted ,----[ definite-majority-choice-graded-ballot ] | Definite Majority Choice: | | Voters can grade their choices from favorite (A) to least preferred | (ungraded), and give some or all of their graded choices a "passing | grade", signifying approval. | | Ranked ballots are added into a Round-Robin array, and the approval | scores of each candidate are also tabulated. | | To determine the winner, | | - Eliminate any candidate that is defeated in a one-to-one match | with any other higher-approved candidate. So by 2 different | measures, a definite majority agrees that candidate should be | eliminated. | | - If more than one candidate remains, the winner is the single | candidate that defeats all others in one-to-one (pairwise) | contests. | | How to vote: | | Graded ballot: | | A B C D E F G | | X1 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) | | X2 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) | | X3 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) | | X3 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) | | Lowest ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) | Passing | Grade | (optional) | | You can give the same grade to more than one candidate. By default, | each graded candidates get a "passing grade" and one Approval point. | | Ungraded candidates are graded below all others and get no Approval | points. | | Optionally, a voter can specify a Lowest Passing Grade (LPG), which | means that any graded candidates with lower grades get no approval | points. | | If this were a vote for president, one could compare the LPG selection | to Gerald Ford. One might disagree whether he was a good or bad | president, but anybody better than him would be a good president, and | anybody worse than him would be bad. | | The main reason to grade candidates below the "Gerald Ford" mark would | be if you're not optimistic about the chances for your higher-ranked | favorite and compromise candidates. Grading candidate X below the LPG | mark gives you a chance to say "I don't like X and don't want him to | win, but of all the alternatives, he would make the fewest changes in | the wrong direction." Then you have some say in the outcome, instead | of leaving the choice among the alternatives to the most vocal and | extreme parts of other factions. `---- -- araucaria dot araucana at gmail dot com ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info