New Simple Condorcet Method - Basically Copeland+Margins

[multi_system_fan]

@jack-waugh yeah just simple choose one, most wins. I know in theory also ties could occur, you could argue for more expression or more complex, but I think this is fair and simple enough.

[Jack Waugh]

@multi_system_fan Sounds good and maybe that can satisfy all nostalgia for FPtP.

[rob]

yeah just simple choose one, most wins

Which means that any that are similar will split the vote.

Aside from that, I get the idea of "vote for the voting method," there is a certain geeky appeal. But I think proposing that to the public would go badly. It just seems complicated and messy, and voters will prefer the status quo. We'd basically be saying "this stuff is so weird and nuanced that we'll just push that decision off to the voters on every single election," which isn't a good look.

[multi_system_fan]

@rob "voting for what to do when voting-methods disagree" seems a better description.
You may be right that it seems complicated but I expect after a few election-cycles voters would relax about it and probably gravitate towards 1 or 2 favorite methods. Also I expect political parties, commentators, mathmaticians, pychologists and social desicion-scientists would become better at it gradually. Wheter you and I like it or not, voting activists and theorists disagree a lot to the point of becoming irrelavant to change. You seem to miss the opportunity to at least agree when methods agree which is very often.

[rob]

@multi_system_fan said in New Simple Condorcet Method - Basically Copeland+Margins:

I expect after a few election-cycles voters would relax about it

Sure, but it would never get to that because it would never get adopted.

I'm all for us holding regular votes for voting methods, so after a few cycles we start to reach agreement. (hopefully)

But I think we'd be foolish to try to bring the public too far into that, especially in a way that they have to "vote for what to do when voting-methods disagree" with every election. Honestly I have a hard time imagining that most voters would even have an opinion on it, unless for some reason they were told that one method or another favored their preferred candidate.

[multi_system_fan]

@rob if most voting-system innovators and activists would slowly gravitate to a single winner with good support using voting rounds then I agree with you, that would be much better.
However, I've been in this space for about 5 years and I see no signs of this at all In fact I see increasing fragmentation, polarisation, vote-splitting, many new variants that receive very little feedback and many leaving members in dissapointed way. In fact this was the reason I thought : why not push this fuzy complexity to the voters as a solition
I got one response from you, and you don't agree at all. Which is ok, but our differences illustrate my point.

[rob]

@multi_system_fan Well our differences aren't that we disagree on methods, it is that we disagree on whether the voters should actually vote on the method with each election. That seems very different, but ok.... yeah there is fragmentation polarization and vote splitting in this community, as ironic as that seems.

I have proposed for a long time that we hold regular votes on methods. I'm currently working on building out some tools so we can do it right on this forum. It would have happened a lot quicker if I was running the forum, as I was going to do until things went off the rails, but Jack seems to be giving me access to what I need.

(here's one place were I mention it)
https://forum.electionscience.org/t/new-home-for-this-forum-community/720/49?u=robbrown

I can also see a day where we hold regular votes within the forum. Like to vote for “election method of the month” or whatever. There are all kinds of creative things we can do. The reasoning for this should be obvious. One, we get to use the methods we talk about. Two, we gradually move toward consensus, rather than so much going round and round.

I've also been in the space a long time, and I agree with your frustration that things haven't happened more quickly. It's great if we keep proposing new methods, but we also have to have a good filtering process.

[Sass]

@multi_system_fan Your complaint is about a technical page meant for people who want all of the details. The details will remain. When there is a page ready for marketing, then your concern can be applied to that for evaluation.

[Jack Waugh]

Is the following almost as resistant to vote splitting as Ranked Robin?

Rank so many candidates as you choose. Equal ranking is permitted. Unranked candidates are assumed worst.

Each candidate's total margin is calculated as the sum over how well they did against the other candidates, as the number of voters who preferred them minus the number of voters who preferred the other candidate. The candidate with the highest total margin wins.

[A Former User]

@jack-waugh That would be identical to Borda.