7 ms·

In the event that the vote calculation is new to anyone else (it was to me), it looks like this [1] is what they are doing [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/

by kardos 7y ago

In the event that the vote calculation is new to anyone else (it was to me), it looks like this [1] is what they are doing [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
usr1106 7y ago
This is considered one of the most democratic systems, it tries to make sure that the preferences of most voters are met in an optimal way. However, I would claim that with a list of 8 options it is close to impossible for a human to come up with a stable ordering. If you were to vote 3 times or 5 times without being allowed to look at your previous ballot sheets, how much would the votes change?
- heftig 7y ago
  You don't have to produce a well-ordered ballot. E.g. you can pick your favorites and let everything else share last place.
- pacifika 7y ago
  You vote once in the Schulze method
  - klez 7y ago
    That wasn't the point of GP's comment. Of course you only have one round of voting. Their point was, if you have 8 options and you don't really care for most of them (i.e. only the ordering of the first two or three matters to you) than the ordering of the options you don't care for won't carry much significance to the single voters (so they may order them randomly or leave them in the order they are presented), but it can matter in the end results. (I hope what I mean is clear, if not feel free to push me for clarification)
    - tialaramex 7y ago
      What you mean is _clear_ but it's _wrong_ Intentionally or not you've performed a little bit of sleight of hand. At first our voter doesn't care which of "most of them" gets chosen, they've no preference. Then one of these gets picked and "it can matter". But it doesn't matter to the voter we're thinking about at all. The people "it can matter" for thought hard about this option because it mattered to them by definition, and so their sincere preference was incorporated into the decision. By smuggling their preference back in as a concealed preference of other voters who didn't actually care, you inflate their position. If I say I don't care between Pizza and Burgers, and then Burgers win, you don't get to count me as a secret supporter of your "Let's eat these stale Doritos I found" faction just because you feel my support of Burgers ought not to really count.
- raverbashing 7y ago
  Funny how the most democratic systems are absolutely dependent on electronic vote, because no one can count all those different orderings by hand
  - Yen 7y ago
    I disagree with the assertion that "no one can count all those different orderings by hand". To steelman a bit, let's consider a worst-case brute force manual tabulation of the results (there certainly may be more efficient ways to do it by hand than what I write here): On a ranked ballot with 8 proposals, there's effectively (8 * 7)=56 binary options (do you prefer A over B, do you prefer B over A, do you prefer A over C, etc.) In this vote, there were 452 valid ballots. 452 * 56 = 25,312 individual data points to tabulate, into a 8x8 matrix of results. If reading an individual result off a ballot and counting it takes a person 1-10 seconds, the entire tabulation would take 7-70 person-hours. With that 8x8 matrix of individual results tabulated, determining the Condorcet winner (or the members of the Schulze set, if there's no Condorcet winner), takes less than 1 person-hour, by hand. Now, that's certainly not an instantaneous result, but it's certainly within the realm of feasibility for a completely non-electronic election or referendum. As another way of sanity-checking, consider that major elections in the U.S. often involve a combination of local, state, and federal ballots that can have upwards of 30 individual questions in total, and millions of ballots are cast, and results are typically certified within a fairly short timeframe. It offline's certainly the case that an all-electronic vote is faster, more convenient, and that this lower cost can also allow for more proposals on the ballot, and more frequent and more granular elections, but I'd say it's a far cray from being "absolutely dependent on electronic vote".
- JeremyNT 7y ago
  Is that stability actually an issue? It would seem to indicate that the voter has no strong preference for the items that they could not remember how to order consistently, and so either outcome would be roughly equally acceptable to them.
  - matthewbauer 7y ago
    It could mean that in a close vote like this, the result was due to random chance and not the will of voters. This does happen in fptp as well but not to this extreme.
- jchook 7y ago
  I have seen a lot of buzz around Quadratic Voting as an alternative. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2003531 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2003531
- jcranmer 7y ago
  Schulze requires only a weak order of your votes: you can say that you like options B and C better than D, E, and F, but not prefer B over C or C over B. This is going to be an easier way to reflect your inner vote preference, because instability of votes is likely to be a result of choosing arbitrary orders for different tranches--and Schulze doesn't require you to pick that order.
  - usr1106 7y ago
    You are correct. The voter has the option to lead options unranked or rank several ones equally. So it's easier than having to come up with a complete ordering. Still, I would expect than many voters would come up with slightly different ballot sheets when having to do it several times. Did I give these 3 or 4 options the same low rank? Even if not required most Debian voters seem to give complete orderings https://www.debian.org/vote/2019/vote_001_tally.txt https://www.debian.org/vote/2019/vote_001_tally.txt in "normal" elections. In this complicated systemd voting less so https://vote.debian.org/~secretary/gr_initsystems/tally.txt https://vote.debian.org/~secretary/gr_initsystems/tally.txt

by kardos 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

usr1106 7y ago

This is considered one of the most democratic systems, it tries to make sure that the preferences of most voters are met in an optimal way. However, I would claim that with a list of 8 options it is close to impossible for a human to come up with a stable ordering. If you were to vote 3 times or 5 times without being allowed to look at your previous ballot sheets, how much would the votes change?

heftig 7y ago
You don't have to produce a well-ordered ballot. E.g. you can pick your favorites and let everything else share last place.
pacifika 7y ago
You vote once in the Schulze method
- klez 7y ago
  That wasn't the point of GP's comment. Of course you only have one round of voting. Their point was, if you have 8 options and you don't really care for most of them (i.e. only the ordering of the first two or three matters to you) than the ordering of the options you don't care for won't carry much significance to the single voters (so they may order them randomly or leave them in the order they are presented), but it can matter in the end results. (I hope what I mean is clear, if not feel free to push me for clarification)
  - tialaramex 7y ago
    What you mean is _clear_ but it's _wrong_ Intentionally or not you've performed a little bit of sleight of hand. At first our voter doesn't care which of "most of them" gets chosen, they've no preference. Then one of these gets picked and "it can matter". But it doesn't matter to the voter we're thinking about at all. The people "it can matter" for thought hard about this option because it mattered to them by definition, and so their sincere preference was incorporated into the decision. By smuggling their preference back in as a concealed preference of other voters who didn't actually care, you inflate their position. If I say I don't care between Pizza and Burgers, and then Burgers win, you don't get to count me as a secret supporter of your "Let's eat these stale Doritos I found" faction just because you feel my support of Burgers ought not to really count.
raverbashing 7y ago
Funny how the most democratic systems are absolutely dependent on electronic vote, because no one can count all those different orderings by hand
- Yen 7y ago
  I disagree with the assertion that "no one can count all those different orderings by hand". To steelman a bit, let's consider a worst-case brute force manual tabulation of the results (there certainly may be more efficient ways to do it by hand than what I write here): On a ranked ballot with 8 proposals, there's effectively (8 * 7)=56 binary options (do you prefer A over B, do you prefer B over A, do you prefer A over C, etc.) In this vote, there were 452 valid ballots. 452 * 56 = 25,312 individual data points to tabulate, into a 8x8 matrix of results. If reading an individual result off a ballot and counting it takes a person 1-10 seconds, the entire tabulation would take 7-70 person-hours. With that 8x8 matrix of individual results tabulated, determining the Condorcet winner (or the members of the Schulze set, if there's no Condorcet winner), takes less than 1 person-hour, by hand. Now, that's certainly not an instantaneous result, but it's certainly within the realm of feasibility for a completely non-electronic election or referendum. As another way of sanity-checking, consider that major elections in the U.S. often involve a combination of local, state, and federal ballots that can have upwards of 30 individual questions in total, and millions of ballots are cast, and results are typically certified within a fairly short timeframe. It offline's certainly the case that an all-electronic vote is faster, more convenient, and that this lower cost can also allow for more proposals on the ballot, and more frequent and more granular elections, but I'd say it's a far cray from being "absolutely dependent on electronic vote".
JeremyNT 7y ago
Is that stability actually an issue? It would seem to indicate that the voter has no strong preference for the items that they could not remember how to order consistently, and so either outcome would be roughly equally acceptable to them.
- matthewbauer 7y ago
  It could mean that in a close vote like this, the result was due to random chance and not the will of voters. This does happen in fptp as well but not to this extreme.
jchook 7y ago
I have seen a lot of buzz around Quadratic Voting as an alternative. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2003531 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2003531
jcranmer 7y ago
Schulze requires only a weak order of your votes: you can say that you like options B and C better than D, E, and F, but not prefer B over C or C over B. This is going to be an easier way to reflect your inner vote preference, because instability of votes is likely to be a result of choosing arbitrary orders for different tranches--and Schulze doesn't require you to pick that order.
- usr1106 7y ago
  You are correct. The voter has the option to lead options unranked or rank several ones equally. So it's easier than having to come up with a complete ordering. Still, I would expect than many voters would come up with slightly different ballot sheets when having to do it several times. Did I give these 3 or 4 options the same low rank? Even if not required most Debian voters seem to give complete orderings https://www.debian.org/vote/2019/vote_001_tally.txt https://www.debian.org/vote/2019/vote_001_tally.txt in "normal" elections. In this complicated systemd voting less so https://vote.debian.org/~secretary/gr_initsystems/tally.txt https://vote.debian.org/~secretary/gr_initsystems/tally.txt