@A Former User said in Kennedy Jr’s Candidacy as a Route to Voting Reform:
This thread made me lose interest in this forum. RFK Jr. is a monster.
Just one person posting something you disagree with made you lose interest in the whole forum?
Forum wide moderators
@A Former User said in Kennedy Jr’s Candidacy as a Route to Voting Reform:
This thread made me lose interest in this forum. RFK Jr. is a monster.
Just one person posting something you disagree with made you lose interest in the whole forum?
There is an online obituary if you want to read it here.
@cfrank While I'm not an expert in how to make methods pass particular criteria, participation seems to be a very hard one to get. Most of the methods that pass it seem to be simple adding up ones (e.g. FPTP, Borda, approval, score), although Descending Solid Coalitions and Descending Acquiescing Coalitions are slightly weird methods that do pass it apparently.
@cfrank said in Fixing Participation Failure in “Approval vs B2R”:
(6) Run a secondary, independent head-to-head election between the B2R winner and their adversary, with the following caveats:
--> Voters are not tied down in any way to their original preference between the B2R winner and the adversary, and can freely vote for either in the independent head-to-head. Also, voters who did not participate in the first round are fully allowed to participate in the final round. By default, voters' original ballots will be used to determine the preference, but voters may opt in to swap their rating either 0 or 1 times, whichever amount is necessary to indicate an advantage that they wish to disclose.
--> However, based on these swaps, we can count the net number of swaps that are advantageous to the adversary over the B2R winner compared with the original ballots. If this number is positive, the election proceeds as you would expect, with ties broken by the sort order. However, if the number is not positive, if the original head-to-head was in favor of the B2R survivor, and if a material difference would be incurred, then the adversary will be conferred an automatic +1 head-to-head advantage, and will also automatically win ties.
I find this part a bit hard to understand.
Also, if it's an independent head-to-head, do you mean a separate trip to the polling station, or just a separate part of the ballot paper? If it's a separate trip, then it would be impossible to manage the swaps and each voter's default position without losing anonymity.
@kodos I've changed it so new users have to register with an e-mail address. I don't think that's too onerous, and it should make the problem go away.
@kodos I'll have a look to see if I can find a way to change that or if it's "hardwired" in.
If you're pitting the winners of two methods against each other, what do you do if it's the same candidate? Are they just the winner, or does there need to be a final head-to-head between two candidates?
@kodos I also have admin powers but wasn't aware this was a thing either. But I've just looked at the user list in the admin section and it seems that you have no e-mail address by your name. That could be the problem. It might be worth trying to add an e-mail address to your account. I think you'll then need to verify it by clicking on a link that gets e-mailed to you or something.
@toby-pereira said in General stuff about approval/cardinal PR:
This project hasn't purely been altruistic - it's been helpful to me by laying everything out for reworking my COWPEA paper!
And the new version can be seen here (as I mentioned in the separate COWPEA thread anyway).
The paper has been updated and some errors corrected.