@sarawolk said in Allocated score (STAR-PR) centrist clones concern:

In any case, I think that Clones are a much bigger problem in hypothetical math scenarios than they ever will be in real life campaigns, and if a faction can really pull off running 2 or 3 clones that all break through and win over voters then that's frankly impressive. The reality is that if voter behavior doesn't do them in, limitations in campaign funding and volunteer power likely will.

I'm not sure I really see this as a problem of clones specifically. If parties exist, then it's fairly normal for parties to field several candidates in a multi-winner election.

But I do think the particular voting behaviour in the example election is a bit "edge case", although it's still best to avoid vulnerability to it.

Well, it partly depends on what you do with equal ranks or incomplete ballots. If an unranked candidate is scored as 0 then a 4-3-2-1 system would be different from 3-2-1-0. But if it's done in a more sensible way, they would be equivalent.

I suppose he's used that assumption because a hereditary monarch is essentially a leader arbitrarily picked, like in random winner (as opposed to random ballot). But this is obviously very simplistic. When you have an all-powerful monarch versus some other system, the entire political and cultural landscape is likely to be very different and that isn't modelled by this.

Yeah, I mean ChatGPT has some big holes in its ability (as I've complained about), but it's also a bit scary what it's capable of sometimes. I don't think anything we can do is off limits in principle to a ChatGPT type thing.

I've been looking at this and I don't think it is the best. One (minor) problem is that when you're summing the scores, for voters that haven't had any candidates elected and also gave a score of 0 to the candidate in question, you get 0/0. Obviously you just need to count it as 0 to get it to work, but it can make one suspicious that there are problems lurking beneath.

But the main problem is that it fails scale invariance. Well it passes in a multiplicative way as it is defined on the wiki, but not if you add to the scores.

For example, if everyone scores 1 to 10 instead of 0 to 9 (so just adds 1 to every score), you can get a different result. KP + SPAV (also known as Sequential Proportional Score Voting or SPSV) passes this. I know it might seem unsatisfactory to "split" the voter with KP, but in terms of passing criteria, it seems to do the job.

@sarawolk I've seen the initial video, but not the 3-hour follow-up! I thought in the first video, the criticism of score was weird.

This method heavily depends on turnout for more accurate scores. What if turnout is extremely low and only extremists turn up to the polls?

Every method depends on turnout for more accurate results. No reason has been given for why score should suffer any more than any other method in this regard.

@cfrank I've seen a few as well which I've deleted, but they're not overwhelming the board or anything, so I wouldn't want to make anything worse for any new users we might get, which isn't that many anyway! So I'd probably say leave it for now, but keep an eye on the situation.

@wolftune I'm not sure this is just an Allocated Score thing. I think that sequential methods that start by electing the candidate with the highest total score and go from there are always likely to have this sort of thing happen. Non-sequential methods may avoid it more easily, but that's obviously more expensive computationally. The other option is to not go by total score.

While people aren't likely to cast votes that are perfectly related to utility, I still see scores as more akin to utility than to something like money, where the increase in utility drops off the higher up the scale you go.

So what I'm saying is that I see a 5 and a 0 as in the same ballpark as a 3 and a 2, rather than the 3 and 2 being preferable for equity reasons.

How good score voting is generally is a separate debate obviously, but where it gives the same tie as a pairwise method, I don't see any reason in principle to prefer one result over another. But as a tie-break, it's probably fine to choose the result you might consider less divisive.

An interesting follow-up question would be whether you would consider divisiveness over score where there isn't an exact score tie (but is a pairwise tie still) or whether it's only useful as a tie-breaker. You could, for example, reduce C's score of 3 to 2. That way, the pairwise result is still a tie but on average scores, A and B are now marginally ahead of C despite being more divisive. Is there still an argument to elect C?

As said, voters can often face a dilemma of whether to approve someone or not. What counts as approval etc. If I approve my second favourite candidate, what if it turns out my favourite could have won after all?

Also under ranked voting, ranks have less of an obvious meaning so a voter doesn't have to feel they are explicitly endorsing a candidate when they rank them over someone else. Say my preference order is A>B>C and B and C are the frontrunners, but I hate both B and C while preferring B to C. I might happily rank A>B>C. But to explicitly approve B might be a step too far, even though it's the strategically optimal vote for me.

Also, it really invites people to say that it violates one person, one vote, and you have to explain why it doesn't.

I've just learnt from Rob Lanphier on the election methods mailing list of the death of Jameson Quinn after an accident while hiking in Guatemala. This is very sad news and a lot of you will be familiar with Jameson from his contributions to the voting method community over many years. I used to communicate with him about cardinal proportional methods and he's the only person from the community that I've ever met in person, back in 2017 I think.

Rob's original message can be seen here and the message from his mother posting the news is here.

I discussed something similar here and there's a video here as well. There's a video as well which shows a potential ballot design.

In what I discussed the top voted candidate in each district was automatically elected in the first phase.

@matija Do you need the first step about the electing the candidate with most votes in each district but only if they have a Hare quota? You could just do the whole process using the PR system. Or just elect the candidate with most votes anyway and just use the PR system for the second ones to be elected.

I tend to think quotas are somewhat arbitrary.

@matija True. If individual ballot data can be used, then the funding that results from each could be split equally across the candidates approved on that ballot. But this still might not be very satisfactory.

@matija If public funding is proportional to votes, then I'd say it's easier with approval voting than ranks. With ranks, you could use top votes as you say, but then you might give less funding to the election winner (by IRV, Condorcet or whatever).

@cfrank I've seen a few as well which I've deleted, but they're not overwhelming the board or anything, so I wouldn't want to make anything worse for any new users we might get, which isn't that many anyway! So I'd probably say leave it for now, but keep an eye on the situation.

@cfrank Yes. I think parties have their place as it makes it easier to know what someone is standing for in some cases and can simplify the process for voters, but I don't think they should form an essential part of the process, and it should be just as possible for independent candidates to stand.

@gregw COWPEA doesn't pass consistency. Fairness is subjective. But COWPEA itself is just a proportional weighting thing rather than an election method itself. The lottery version could be used for elections but being non-deterministic would likely be a difficult sell.

One other method would be to pick a voter and split their representation equally among the candidates that they have approved. This would be strategy-proof. However, it fails candidate Pareto efficiency.

1 voter: AB
1 voter: A

B would get 1/4 of the weight, and A 3/4. But B is Pareto dominated by A.

Another method is called the Conditional Utility Rule. This puts all the voter's representation onto the candidate that is most approved overall (or splits it equally if there's a tie). This guarantees a the maximum total approval score among a proportional result. But it fails IIB.

2 voters: A
1 voter: B
7 voters: AB

This would weight A:B 9:1. Passing IIB would give 2:1. But despite guaranteeing the maximum total approval score for a proportional result, it still fails multi-winner Pareto efficiency. It can sometimes be possible to find a set that dominates the winning set, although the result won't be proportional. See the result on this page. This is another reason why the multi-winner Pareto efficiency criterion is not necessarily a good thing within the voting election landscape.

I think this is largely it. This project hasn't purely been altruistic - it's been helpful to me by laying everything out for reworking my COWPEA paper!

Strong multi-winner Pareto efficiency: A set of candidates S Pareto dominates set S′ if every voter has approved at least as many candidates in S as S′ and least one voter has approved more in S.

For a method to pass the criterion S′ must not be the elected set.

(For optimal methods it would refer to weight in the committee rather than number of candidates.)

COWPEA fails this.

250 voters: AC
250 voters: AD
250 voters: BC
250 voters: BD
1 voter: C
1 voter: D

Optimal PAV would simply elect C and D with half the weight each. COWPEA would elect each with about 1/4, but C and D slightly more.

This example can be seen as a 2-dimensional voting space with A and B at opposite ends of one axis and C and D at opposite ends of the other. No voter has approved both A and B or both C and D. Viewed like this, electing only C and D seems restrictive and arguably does not make best use of the voting space, which may include policy areas not considered by all candidates. This potentially calls into question the utility of the multi-winner Pareto efficiency criterion. It's certainly not a "slam dunk".

In certain allocation scenarios, it would make more sense as a criterion where utility is purely determined by number of approved things, but it's less clear for voting.

Also in normal election cases with fixed candidates, the case against it is clearer.

2 to elect

150 voters: AC
100 voters: AD
140 voters: BC
110 voters: BD
1 voter: C
1 voter: D

The winning set must be AB or CD. If we elect any other pair, then too many voters would be without any representation. Candidates A and B are each approved by 250 voters, distinct from each other, and adding up to 500. Candidate C is approved by 291, and candidate D by 211, also distinct from each other, and adding up to 502. The strong multi-winner Pareto criterion would insist on the election of CD, since every voter would have one candidate that they approved in the committee. Under AB, there would be two unrepresented voters. However, CD is a disproportional result, as the D voters, numbering only 211 wield a disproportionally large amount of power. Without the two voters that only vote for one candidate, it seems clear that AB would be the better result, as it is more proportional with no disadvantages.

It purely comes down to whether the Pareto dominance caused by the single C-only and single D-only voter is enough to overturn the better-balanced result of AB. Unless level of proportional representation is of only negligible or tie-break value, AB must be the better result. Deterministic PAV would elect CD but other methods such as Phragmén would elect AB.

Consistency is where when two elections that give the same result are combined, the overall result must still be the same. Sticking with the fixed candidate case, we could swap the C and D voters above:

150 voters: AD
100 voters: AC
140 voters: BD
110 voters: BC
1 voter: D
1 voter: C

If it was reasonable to elect AB before, it still is now. But we can combine them:

250 voters: AC
250 voters: AD
250 voters: BC
250 voters: BD
2 voters: C
2 voters: D

And clearly CD becomes the best result, meaning consistency isn't essential. Obviously COWPEA and Optimal PAV can elect candidates in different proportions so they are not directly affected by this.

However, take these election examples:

2 voters: AC
1 voter: A
3 voters: B

C is Pareto dominated by A so COWPEA would elect AB with half the weight each.

3 voters: A
2 voters: BC
1 voter: B

Similarly here, COWPEA would elect AB in the same manner. Then combine the ballots:

4 voters: A
4 voters: B
2 voters: AC
2 voters: BC

COWPEA would now elect C with 1/9 of the weight as it is no longer Pareto dominated. Combining the ballots sets has changed C’s position within the electoral landscape. It does not seem unreasonable to elect C with some weight in this election, and it is therefore not clear that passing the consistency criterion is necessary for a proportional approval method.

Next I will briefly consider a couple of other optimal methods, one of which will also show problems with the multi-winner Pareto criterion.