Nomenclature

[Bruce Gilson]

On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 4:49 PM, 'Steve Cobb' via The Center for Election Science <electio...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

You guys are tripping over one my pet voting peeves: nomenclature. 

Voting systems have several attributes, major and minor, starting with the basic questions of expression and tallying, then basis for decision, and finally details like tie-breaking, rounds, limits on how many candidates one may express an opinion on, etc. I’ve pointed out earlier that we need a better taxonomy, as the current names are confusing and inconsistent. Sometimes we name a voting system by its expression method (e.g. approval voting, ranked choice voting), sometimes by its tallying method (instant runoff voting), and sometimes by its decision basis (plurality voting). Sometimes we name voting systems by their creators (Borda, Condorcet) or their promoters (Bucklin). Sometimes the name is…something else (top two with runoff). Sometimes we give a voting system multiple names (e.g. plurality voting, first-past-the-post voting, choose-one voting). 

Sometimes the name is not based on the most salient feature: when we complain about plurality voting, we’re upset first with the choose-one expression method; in the case of AV we’re usually fine with plurality as a decision basis. We can tweak some of the details, and call them variations: AV with plurality decision basis, or AV with majority decision basis. The essence of AV is pretty clearly rating each candidate on a scale of 0 or 1. 

​We are not ​in a position to define names that everyone else interested in voting systems will use. We have not been in any way approved as a standards board. So if people are going to use "first past the post," "plurality," or my preferred term "single-winner plurality," they will do so regardless of any terminology we adopt. (I shudder when I see us use "AV" for "approval voting," because the same abbreviation is also used for the "alternative vote," another name for "instant runoff voting."

​We might adopt some names for our own internal use, but if we quote someone outside our group, we need to be willing to accept their terminology.

​It is true, however, that the same term has different meanings even within our group. Jameson uses "Bucklin" for systems that I would never so describe -- to me one of the necessary features of Bucklin voting is a ranked ballot, while to Jameson, if I understand correctly,  any system using a median-based resolution system is still Bucklin. This may need clarification.

[Steve Cobb]

>We are not ​in a position to define names that everyone else interested in voting systems will use.

There are at least two large groups of people interested in voting systems: theorists and activists. The theorists have shown themselves unable to communicate with the public, the lack of a coherent taxonomy being just one failure. The activists (at least this one) find themselves hobbled by language, as if it weren't already hard enough to engage a disinterested public and hostile politicians.

>I shudder when I see us use "AV" for "approval voting," 

>because the same abbreviation is also used for the "alternative vote," another name for "instant runoff voting."

Unfortunately the "correct" way to write the names of voting systems is all lower case (except for surnames), so a three or even four-word name gets lost in a paragraph of text, especially when it contains several other voting-system names. Acronyms in all caps stand out (and are more compact, and obviate troublesome hyphenation). Generally, especially in this crowd, otherwise-ambiguous acronyms like AV and PV are quite clear by context, and otherwise can be spelled out, so I rarely find myself shuddering, at least in reaction to ambiguity in acronyms.

>​We might adopt some names for our own internal use

I'd be curious to see how the experts would create a taxonomy. 

>if we quote someone outside our group, we need to be willing to accept their terminology.

I think we're already accustomed to saying parenthetically (a.k.a. first past the post) or (a.k.a. instant-runoff voting).

On Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 2:46:55 AM UTC+2, Bruce R. Gilson wrote: