Polling Ourselves

Jack Waugh

This post is deleted!

Jack Waugh

This is to gather in one place the list of nominees.

Approval (Ossipoff, Pereira, Waugh)
Ranked-Pairs(winning-votes) equal-ranking allowed (Ossipoff)
STAR (Ossipoff, Waugh)
Score{2, 1, 0} (Waugh)
Score{100, 99, 90, 50, 10, 1, 0} (Waugh)
Score{5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0} (Waugh)
0 to 9 scale (only used for ranking), ranked pairs, winning votes (Pereira)
Smith//Score (0 to 9 ballot) (Pereira)
quantile-normalized score, with integer scores from 0 to 100 (Frankston)
0-9 score (Pereira)

Jack Waugh

For what to propose to the public:

  In Approval:

    1 Approval
    1 STAR
    1 Score{2, 1, 0}
    1 Score{100, 99, 90, 50, 10, 1, 0}
    1 Score{5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0}
    1 Smith//Score (0 to 9 ballot)
    1 0-9 score
    0 quantile-normalized score, with integer
      scores from 0 to 100
    0 0 to 9 scale (only used for ranking), ranked
      pairs, winning votes.
    0 Ranked-Pairs(winning-votes) equal-ranking
      allowed

  In STAR:

    5 Approval
    5 Score{2, 1, 0}
    5 Score{100, 99, 90, 50, 10, 1, 0}
    5 Score{5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0}
    5 0-9 score
    4 STAR
    4 Smith//Score (0 to 9 ballot)
    1 0 to 9 scale (only used for ranking), ranked
      pairs, winning votes.
    0 Ranked-Pairs(winning-votes) equal-ranking
      allowed
    0 quantile-normalized score, with integer
      scores from 0 to 100

  In Score{5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0}:

    5 Approval
    5 Score{2, 1, 0}
    5 Score{100, 99, 90, 50, 10, 1, 0}
    5 Score{5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0}
    5 0-9 score
    4 STAR
    4 Smith//Score (0 to 9 ballot)
    1 0 to 9 scale (only used for ranking), ranked
      pairs, winning votes.
    0 Ranked-Pairs(winning-votes) equal-ranking
      allowed
    0 quantile-normalized score, with integer
      scores from 0 to 100

  In Score{2, 1, 0}:

    2 Approval
    2 Score{2, 1, 0}
    2 Score{100, 99, 90, 50, 10, 1, 0}
    2 Score{5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0}
    2 0-9 score
    1 STAR
    1 Smith//Score (0 to 9 ballot)
    0 0 to 9 scale (only used for ranking), ranked
      pairs, winning votes.
    0 quantile-normalized score, with integer
      scores from 0 to 100
    0 Ranked-Pairs(winning-votes) equal-ranking
      allowed

  In Score{100, 99, 90, 50, 10, 1, 0}:

    100 Approval
    100 Score{2, 1, 0}
    100 Score{5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0}
    100 0-9 score
    099 STAR
    099 Score{100, 99, 90, 50, 10, 1, 0}
    090 Smith//Score (0 to 9 ballot)
    001 0 to 9 scale (only used for ranking),
        ranked pairs, winning votes.
    000 quantile-normalized score, with integer
        scores from 0 to 100
    000 Ranked-Pairs(winning-votes) equal-ranking
        allowed

  In 0 to 9 scale (only used for ranking), ranked
    pairs, winning votes:

    9 Approval
    9 Score{2, 1, 0}
    9 Score{100, 99, 90, 50, 10, 1, 0}
    9 Score{5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0}
    9 0-9 score
    8 STAR
    8 Smith//Score (0 to 9 ballot)
    1 0 to 9 scale (only used for ranking),
      ranked pairs, winning votes.
    0 quantile-normalized score, with integer
      scores from 0 to 100
    0 Ranked-Pairs(winning-votes) equal-ranking
      allowed.

  In quantile-normalized score, with integer
    scores from 0 to 100:

    100 Approval
    100 Score{2, 1, 0}
    100 Score{5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0}
    100 0-9 score
    099 STAR
    099 Score{100, 99, 90, 50, 10, 1, 0}
    090 Smith//Score (0 to 9 ballot)
    001 0 to 9 scale (only used for ranking),
        ranked pairs, winning votes.
    000 quantile-normalized score, with integer
        scores from 0 to 100
    000 Ranked-Pairs(winning-votes) equal-ranking
        allowed

  In Smith//Score (0 to 9 ballot):

    9 Approval
    9 Score{2, 1, 0}
    9 Score{100, 99, 90, 50, 10, 1, 0}
    9 Score{5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0}
    9 0-9 score
    8 STAR
    8 Smith//Score (0 to 9 ballot)
    1 0 to 9 scale (only used for ranking),
      ranked pairs, winning votes.
    0 quantile-normalized score, with integer
      scores from 0 to 100
    0 Ranked-Pairs(winning-votes) equal-ranking
      allowed.

  In 0-9 score:

    9 Approval
    9 Score{2, 1, 0}
    9 Score{100, 99, 90, 50, 10, 1, 0}
    9 Score{5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0}
    9 0-9 score
    8 STAR
    8 Smith//Score (0 to 9 ballot)
    1 0 to 9 scale (only used for ranking),
      ranked pairs, winning votes.
    0 quantile-normalized score, with integer
      scores from 0 to 100
    0 Ranked-Pairs(winning-votes) equal-ranking
      allowed.

  In Ranked-Pairs(winning-votes) equal-ranking
    allowed:

    Approval
  = Score (all ranges)
  > STAR
  > Smith//Score (0 to 9 ballot)
  > 0 to 9 scale (only used for ranking), ranked
    pairs, winning votes.

@jack-waugh

If several people agree, it seems reasonable to allow additional nominations during the voting-period. If several favor it, it’s democratic.

There were several omissions in my ballots.

…so many that I should just re-post them in complete form.

I like 100, 99, 90, 50, 10, 1, 0 better than 100, 99, 50, 1, 0.

cfrank

I nominate quantile-normalized score, with integer scores from 0 to 100.

Jack Waugh

@toby-pereira, hwæt is Smith//Score?

Jack Waugh

@michaelossipoff said in Polling Ourselves:

allow additional nominations during the voting-period

I don't object.

@jack-waugh

Apply a Score method to the candidates in the Smith-set.

Now that I understand the hybrid, I like it, because it has exactly the same count as RP(w),
while having Cardinal ratings as input.

…giving full incentive for completely sincere estimated-merit-rating, while giving the strategy-free RP(wv) winner.

…with a completely sincerely-rated Score count, for an informational showing if likedness & popularity.

I like it. I might not replace RP(wv) with it, for simplicity reasons, but, with understanding that the count & election-winner are those of RP(wv), I might very well mention it in proposals, because it adds a guaranteed-sincere informational likedness result.

Jack Waugh

I updated the above list of the candidate voting systems. I will continue to do so, without further notice, in case additional nominations come in.

I updated my votes. I will continue to do so, without further notice, in case my opinion changes.

Toby Pereira

@jack-waugh said in Polling Ourselves:

@toby-pereira, hwæt is Smith//Score?

I did link to the wiki article, but it elects the score winner of the Smith set. So if there's a Condorcet winner, they are elected. Otherwise just top score among Smith set.

I will also nominate 0-9 score as an alternative to 0-5 score.

@jack-waugh Yes, likewise. My ballots were full of omissions.

@toby-pereira

Wouldn’t Score(0-100) be better than Score(0-9) for the RP/Score hybrid? It would have room for expression of all pairwise preferences, instead of sometimes forcing equal-rating.

I think Hybrid is great for this poll. Strategy-free RP(wv) result, but accompanied by a reliably-sincere likedness-count.

Just as EqualVote speaks of, the desire to express all pairwise preferences for the RP count will encourage sincerity for the Score ratings. I first heard that principle from EqualVote, in thei discussion of STAR.

I rank it 3rd. The reason why I don’t approve it is because, in public political elections, I like the defense strategy of never ranking someone you don’t like…to further enhance RP(wv)’s already powerful burial deterrence.

As Jack spoke of, I’ll soon re-post my ballots with the omissions fixed.

Toby Pereira

@michaelossipoff said in Polling Ourselves:

Wouldn’t Score(0-100) be better than Score(0-9) for the RP/Score hybrid? It would have room for expression of all pairwise preferences, instead of sometimes forcing equal-rating.

Possibly. I kept it at 0-9 for simplicity, but I wouldn't object to 0-100 or 0-99. (There has been debate in the past over whether 10 and 100 or 9 and 99 are better as max scores. I'm fairly unbothered by it.)

Jack Waugh

@toby-pereira, Smith // Score can be tallied with just the preference matrix total and the score totals, right? No need to bring the entire pile of ballots to a center for tallying.

Jack Waugh

I propose that for purposes of tallying the poll, we pretend we are not all voting in the same "precincts". Talliers can thereby demonstrate that it is not necessary to bring the ballots to the tallying location. We can have two pretend precincts and try to balance them more or less.

Toby Pereira

@jack-waugh said in Polling Ourselves:

@toby-pereira, Smith // Score can be tallied with just the preference matrix total and the score totals, right? No need to bring the entire pile of ballots to a center for tallying.

I don't know much about that side of things.

Lime

What's the goal with such a poll? Is it to provide information for the public, or to make some decision within this group?

Ideally I'd like to see a poll including as many economists, social choice theorists, voting reform advocates, etc. as possible with snowball sampling, and publishing all ballots together with a data analysis (rather than just a single winner or ordering). The results can be published in a paper that can be cited to support claims like "Experts generally believe system A is better than B."

Jack Waugh

@lime There is no proposal to make any formal decision within the group.

Some have proposed repeated polling and I agree with this.

I think the goal of the current one is to inform us of our aggregate attitude toward the single-winner systems, mainly as to their merits for proposing to the public for political elections. Knowing this attitude and some statistics over our votes (do they cluster?) might lead to discussions that we might otherwise not have thought to enter. I think this is valuable. Also, some of us like to describe or invent systems as intellectual curiosities, and the polls (including the current one) can help us as a group distinguish between those and the serious proposals.

I would not oppose trying to implement for a future polling, the ideal you state. You are not the first to suggest asking for votes from members of the larger voting-systems interest community going beyond just the participants in this forum.

Jack Waugh

@lime The public can read this forum and if any of us thinks the set of participants in the current polling or a future one merits mentioning the poll and its outcome in other fora, antisocial media, and/or personal communications, I don't see anything wrong with that. Promoting reform or revolution can be a goal.

@toby-pereira said in Polling Ourselves:

@michaelossipoff said in Polling Ourselves:

Wouldn’t Score(0-100) be better than Score(0-9) for the RP/Score hybrid? It would have room for expression of all pairwise preferences, instead of sometimes forcing equal-rating.

Possibly. I kept it at 0-9 for simplicity, but I wouldn't object to 0-100 or 0-99. (There has been debate in the past over whether 10 and 100 or 9 and 99 are better as max scores. I'm fairly unbothered by it.)

@toby-pereira said in Polling Ourselves:

@michaelossipoff said in Polling Ourselves:

Wouldn’t Score(0-100) be better than Score(0-9) for the RP/Score hybrid? It would have room for expression of all pairwise preferences, instead of sometimes forcing equal-rating.

Possibly. I kept it at 0-9 for simplicity, but I wouldn't object to 0-100 or 0-99. (There has been debate in the past over whether 10 and 100 or 9 and 99 are better as max scores. I'm fairly unbothered by it.)

0-9 or 0-99 is much more line space-efficient. 0-10 or 0-100 gives you one more rating-slot, , 10/9 or 100/99 times as many rating-slots, but requires 2 or 3/2 times as much linespace.

But linespace isn’t an issue at all in our balloting, & so, if it were my choice, I’d use 0-10 or 0-100.

But either is fine with me.

But you’re probably right to use 0-9 instead of 0-99 for Hybrid, because someone could rate 99 & 98, in order to effectively do all-or-nothing strategy while still expressing a pairwise preference.

Hybrid doesn’t combine pairwise expression with sincerity incentive as well as I thought, but I’ll still rank & rate it as high as Score(100, 99, 50, 1, 0).

I heard Williamson in a debate, & based on that, I’ll still rank her 2nd, but I won’t approve her.