Incorporating alliances into STAR to restore criterion compliance
-
I've thought about it some more, and I think I've come up with a system that restores most of STAR's criteria without compromising its resistance to the Burr dilemma.
- Candidates can join (one or more) parties by unanimous consent (from all other candidates of the same party).
- The score of a party is equal to the score of their highest-scoring candidate.
- Eliminate every candidate outside the party. In addition, eliminate every candidate inside the party with a score lower than the second-best party's.
- Rescale the ballots to elect a winner.
The alliance mechanism restores:
- Participation for parties (adding a voter to the solid coalition for a party will always increase the party's chances of winning) and in the runoff.
- In the case where every candidate runs under their own party, this system reduces to score (restoring Score's A+ criterion compliance).
- IIA is restored between parties (a losing party can't affect which party wins) and within parties (a losing candidate can't affect which of their copartisans wins). (The only way to fail IIA is if a candidate outside the party loses.)
- Resistance to turkey-raising: there's no advantage to up-ranking a weak candidate to help them reach the runoff, because supporting a different party's candidate will always hurt your own party.
The advantage of this method over score is it eliminates games of chicken between copartisans. Candidates must specify ahead of time whether they want to be in an alliance, in which case the bullet voting incentive is the same as STAR's (i.e. very low).
-
@lime said in Incorporating alliances into STAR to restore criterion compliance:
Eliminate every candidate outside the party. In addition, eliminate every candidate inside the party with a score lower than the second-best party's.
Rescale the ballots to elect a winner.This sound interesting, how do steps 3 & 4 work?
-
@lime said in Incorporating alliances into STAR to restore criterion compliance:
Candidates can join (one or more) parties by unanimous consent (from all other candidates of the same party).
The score of a party is equal to the score of their highest-scoring candidate.
Eliminate every candidate outside the party. In addition, eliminate every candidate inside the party with a score lower than the second-best party's.
Rescale the ballots to elect a winner.So this is STAR with a rule that the highest scoring candidate runs against the 2nd highest scoring candidate in hir party coalition in an Automatic Runoff?
-
@gregw said in Incorporating alliances into STAR to restore criterion compliance:
@lime said in Incorporating alliances into STAR to restore criterion compliance:
Candidates can join (one or more) parties by unanimous consent (from all other candidates of the same party).
The score of a party is equal to the score of their highest-scoring candidate.
Eliminate every candidate outside the party. In addition, eliminate every candidate inside the party with a score lower than the second-best party's.
Rescale the ballots to elect a winner.So this is STAR with a rule that the highest scoring candidate runs against the 2nd highest scoring candidate in hir party coalition in an Automatic Runoff?
Roughly; the difference being they might run against more than one candidate (if, say, 3 Democrats have higher scores than the top Republican). In that case, the runoff is the same as STLR: you divide every score by the top-ranked candidate's score (so you're using the whole 1-5 point range).
-
@lime
Thank you for the clarification.This brings to mind the question I posed in "STLR - Score Than Leveled Runoff might not be too complex for voters"
Does STLR maintain enough the criterion compliance of Score to justify the STLR's extra complexity?
