05-14-2021, 05:48 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-14-2021, 05:52 AM by 37thchamber.)
This is good content.
Out of curiosity, I put all the ballots through a Schulze (beatpath) method calculator (which I unashamedly stole from somewhere years ago), since that's my preferred voting system. I like it because it shows pairwise preferences (i.e. who preferred A to B and vice-versa) in a matrix, so its usually easier to see that someone was preferred by all voters (condorcet winner), and tbh, that's what matters most to me. That's the clearest indicator of "clear preference" imo.
Anyway, turns out, most results are the same. Only difference I found was in the Kicker of the Year voting.
IRV puts Danny King over McDairmid on the basis of 3rd place votes. But, Schulze ties McDairmid and King (breaking down the pairwise matrix, I can see that each is preferred over the other directly 7 times; basically, if I count the instances in which McDairmid appears higher than King in the ballot order, there would be 7, and vice-versa) so it throws a random ballot out to determine final order. You can make the case that IRV has a more logical tiebreak method in this case, since it's easily quantifiable in a "points" methodology (assuming 3pts for 1st, 2 for 2nd etc, King has more points), though I'd argue that the actual votes show there is no clear preference among the voters, and whatever you use as a tiebreaker will be controversial.
Someone mentioned that seeing the first ranked name on half the ballots not win is a sign of a problem, but I'd argue that's not true. 50% isn't a majority. If the other 50% of voters prefer someone else over that name, then there is no clear preference between the two, surely? If they were first ranked on the majority of ballots, I'd understand the complaint (and also note that this wouldn't happen under a system that meets the condorcet criterion) but that was not the case. Perhaps this is a flaw with the voting system in that it's possible to have exactly 50% of ballots show someone as first choice. A fifteenth ballot would have precluded this possibility entirely.
Anyway, interesting stuff.
Out of curiosity, I put all the ballots through a Schulze (beatpath) method calculator (which I unashamedly stole from somewhere years ago), since that's my preferred voting system. I like it because it shows pairwise preferences (i.e. who preferred A to B and vice-versa) in a matrix, so its usually easier to see that someone was preferred by all voters (condorcet winner), and tbh, that's what matters most to me. That's the clearest indicator of "clear preference" imo.
Anyway, turns out, most results are the same. Only difference I found was in the Kicker of the Year voting.
IRV puts Danny King over McDairmid on the basis of 3rd place votes. But, Schulze ties McDairmid and King (breaking down the pairwise matrix, I can see that each is preferred over the other directly 7 times; basically, if I count the instances in which McDairmid appears higher than King in the ballot order, there would be 7, and vice-versa) so it throws a random ballot out to determine final order. You can make the case that IRV has a more logical tiebreak method in this case, since it's easily quantifiable in a "points" methodology (assuming 3pts for 1st, 2 for 2nd etc, King has more points), though I'd argue that the actual votes show there is no clear preference among the voters, and whatever you use as a tiebreaker will be controversial.
Someone mentioned that seeing the first ranked name on half the ballots not win is a sign of a problem, but I'd argue that's not true. 50% isn't a majority. If the other 50% of voters prefer someone else over that name, then there is no clear preference between the two, surely? If they were first ranked on the majority of ballots, I'd understand the complaint (and also note that this wouldn't happen under a system that meets the condorcet criterion) but that was not the case. Perhaps this is a flaw with the voting system in that it's possible to have exactly 50% of ballots show someone as first choice. A fifteenth ballot would have precluded this possibility entirely.
Anyway, interesting stuff.
I impersonate a programmer for a living
Father of the League Wiki • Friendly Neighbourhood Angry Black Guy™ • NOT British
Originator of the Sim League Cinematic Universe (SLCU)
Super capitalists are parasites. Fite me.
Alternatively, if you agree, you can support a grassroots movement dedicated to educating and organising the working class by buying a digital newspaper subscription. Your support would be greatly appreciated.
