Method support poll

From Electowiki
Revision as of 16:29, 9 September 2005 by 62.236.237.102 (talk)

Jump to: navigation, search

Method support poll. Anyone with an interest in voting methods is welcome to participate. Do not alter the entries of any other participant. In this context, "supporting" a method means that you would an effort to adopt this method in the place of a method that you don't "support". If you oppose a method, that means that you might attempt to prevent the adoption of that method, even as a replacement for a method not on your "support" list. There is no need to list every method that you oppose; just those that you think are worth mentioning, i.e. at least somewhat controversial. Feel free to rank your supported methods in order of preference, or supply some other kind of comparison between them.


Single winner election methods

Which single-winner election methods do you support for the election of government officials? Unless otherwise indicated, it will be assumed that you support the method for local, state, and federal elections.


  • James Green-Armytage

Support: cardinal pairwise with beatpath, ranked pairs, river, or sequential dropping, AWP, CWO-IRV, ER-IRV(whole), Approval voting, ER-IRV(fractional), IRV

Close to supporting: DMC, CDTT, IRV, Smith//minimax

Oppose: Borda count

Close to opposing: minmax, MMPO, Bucklin, Descending Acquiescing Coalitions

  • Kevin Venzke

In general I prefer methods without favorite betrayal incentive. I insist on minimal defense or something similar.

Support: ICA, Approval voting

Close to supporting: Schulze, Tideman, or River (using winning votes or possibly AWP), ER-Bucklin(whole), MAMPO

Support for legislatures only: CDTT-Later-no-harm combination methods

Oppose: plurality, IRV, ER-IRV, margins, Borda, DSC, rating ballots

  • Juho Laatu

Support:

  • Condorcet: best for contentious elections if burying threat considered not too bad
  • Minmax(margins): my default reference point, good utility function, strategy resistance maybe not that bad
  • Path based (Schulze etc.) and winning votes: ok but lots of work for small improvements/changes (that are not all positive)
  • Pairwise comparison methods enhanced with additional approval or rating information: ok as well if not too complex for the voters
  • Approval: clean method and at least some improvement to the commonly user methods
  • Best IRV methods (if pairwise comparison based methods are out of question)

Close to supporting: Two round system (not that bad for multiparty countries)

Not supporting: Rating based methods (maybe not feasible for contentious elections like the government official elections of this query, but good for non-contentious elections)

Oppose:

  • Plurality (except that it is ok for two party countries IF they want to stay that way)
  • Regional winner gets all votes of that region
  • Borda and many other ("more heuristic") methods

Legislative election methods

Which legislative (multi-winner) election methods do you support for the election of government officials? Unless otherwise indicated, it will be assumed that you support the method for local, state, and federal elections.


  • James Green-Armytage

Support CPO-STV, single transferable vote

Close to opposing: Cumulative voting, limited voting, SNTV

  • Kevin Venzke

Support open party list (approval component), closed party list, possibly a proportional approval scheme

  • Juho Laatu

Support:

  • Open party list enhanced with hierarchical structure
  • Open party list
  • STV (non-party-based votes are both good and bad)
  • Regional representation (various styles to complement other methods)

Close to supporting: Closed party list, CPO-STV (complexity problems)

Not supporting: Two party methods (ok if kept intentionally, not just because of fear of changes or to stay in power)

See also