Cataloguing Voting Methods

[Steve Cobb]

Does there exist a good catalog of voting methods?

How feasible would it be to create one?

Below is a draft template.

Voting Method Template

Common Name:

Alternative Names: 

Classification (taxonomy): 

Decision type: single, bloc, proportional

Ballot: cardinal, ordinal, allocational

Tally algorithm: 

Decision basis: [default], plurality, majority

Tie-breaking:

Rounds:

Options: 

Variant of: 

Variants: 

Inventor: 

Usage: 

Summary: 

Notes: 

Criteria: 

Narrative: 

[Andy Jennings]

Wikipedia has a page for each of the major methods to document them.

The Electorama Wiki has more, I'm sure: http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/Main_Page

Neither would have all the details you enumerated above.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Center for Election Science" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to electionscien...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Steve Cobb]

Both are chaotic and currently inadequate, but Electorama is more extensive:

http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/Category:Single-winner_voting_systems

and has a lot of other good stuff. The question is what should be added to the Electology.org website--just the "main" methods?

On Monday, June 20, 2016 at 7:17:50 AM UTC+2, Andrew Jennings wrote:

Wikipedia has a page for each of the major methods to document them.

The Electorama Wiki has more, I'm sure: http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/Main_Page

Neither would have all the details you enumerated above.

[Toby Pereira]

I tried to get an account with the Electorama wiki and got as far as clicking on some verification link, but it never sent me the password that it was supposed to. A lot of work needs to be done with that wiki to make it navigable and more comprehensive and comprehensible. But I think it's pretty much dormant now.

[Markus Schulze]

Dear Steve Cobb,

what is the purpose of this catalog of voting methods?

Markus Schulze

[Steve Cobb]

I think the world needs a coherent catalog, and an organization calling itself The Center for Election Science (note the definite article) ought to host it. I would also like the CES community to rate all these methods.

[Steve Cobb]

Is there a term for distinguishing between voting methods whose tallying incorporates all information simultaneously vs. those (e.g. IRV and Bucklin) that sequentially look at only subsets?

[William Waugh]

"I would also like the CES community to rate all these methods."

If it is time to repeat the rating exercise (which I tallied the last time around, using several voting systems), I suggest a major change: Next time, let's have nominations and discussion of the nominations and settle on a fixed set of candidates before voting. A problem with the previous vote, in which voters could simultaneously nominate and rate categories of voting system, was that different voters used different boundaries to divide the space of possibilities. For example, some voters rated Range Voting as one category, and others divided it according to the granularity of the range. So I'm suggesting that participants agree (or at least consense) on the categories before submitting ratings.

[William Waugh]

On Saturday, June 25, 2016 at 7:29:28 AM UTC-4, Steve Cobb wrote:

Is there a term for distinguishing between voting methods whose tallying incorporates all information simultaneously vs. those (e.g. IRV and Bucklin) that sequentially look at only subsets?

If two methods produce the same result given a set of candidates and a set of voter valuations on who wins, they are two methods to implement the same voting system. Bucklin with equal grading and empty grades (modern Bucklin) may produce the same result as Majority Judgment. I'm not entirely sure they are the same, but suspect it.

It strikes me that the distinction you are describing has a Methodist nature, i. e. that it concentrates on the method rather than the result. Would it put MJ on one side of the line and modern Bucklin on the other?

Another fellow I've been trying to argue with also seems to exhibit a Methodist bent. I think he classifies Range{1, 0, -1} as a "balanced" system but Range{100, 50, 0} as an unbalanced system. But those are the same system, just using different notations for the intermediate results used to compute the final result.