4 ms·
>because it has bad outcomes and for no additional cost or complexity those ranked ballots could have been counted by a Condorcet method that results in better
by hackinthebochs 8y ago
>because it has bad outcomes and for no additional cost or complexity those ranked ballots could have been counted by a Condorcet method that results in better democracy.
Can you show how the differences in outcomes is better using the Condorcet method?
- brianolson 8y agoYes, there was a real world election run using IRV that got the wrong answer. Fortunately the full (anonymized) vote set was released and we can see how it would have gone using other election methods. https://bolson.org/irv/ https://bolson.org/irv/ I've also done simulations of millions of elections with various election algorithms and there are trends about what works and what doesn't: https://bolson.org/voting/twographs.html https://bolson.org/voting/twographs.html
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- hackinthebochs 8y agoThe behavior graphs seem to use a linear "happiness" metric to judge the quality of outcome. I question this choice. It is not intuitive to me that some unit of happiness should cancel out a unit of misery when it comes to determining election outcomes. The IRV page extrapolates the majority principle for two choices to more than two choices, but its not obvious that this is correct. There are arguments that need to be made before we can start comparing the quality of outcomes between voting methods.