User:Homunq: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 173: | Line 173: | ||
|bgcolor=#ffbbbb colspan=2 align=center| <span style="display:none">5</span>[[Later-no-harm criterion#Noncomplying methods|No]] |
|bgcolor=#ffbbbb colspan=2 align=center| <span style="display:none">5</span>[[Later-no-harm criterion#Noncomplying methods|No]] |
||
|bgcolor=#ffbbbb| <span style="display:none">5</span>No |
|bgcolor=#ffbbbb| <span style="display:none">5</span>No |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |bgcolor=#ddffdd| <span style="display:none">2</span>Ambig­uous <ref group=nb name=sodamono>For up to 4 candidates, SODA is monotonic. For more than 4 candidates, it is monotonic for adding an approval, for changing from an approval to a delegation ballot, and for changes in a candidate's preferences. However, if changes in a voter's preferences are executed as changes from a delegation to an approval ballot, such changes are not necessarily monotonic with more than 4 candidates.</ref> |
||
⚫ | |bgcolor=#ddffdd| <span style="display:none">2</span>Up to 4 candidates <ref group=nb name=soda4>For up to 4 candidates, SODA meets the Consistency, Participation, IIA, and Cloneproof criteria. It can fail these criteria in certain rare cases with more than 4 candidates. This is considered almost meeting the Consistency and Participation criteria, which does not intrinsically have to do with numerous candidates, and almost failing the IIA and Cloneproof criteria, which do.</ref> |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
|- |
|- |
||
! [[Two-round system|Runoff voting]] |
! [[Two-round system|Runoff voting]] |
||
Line 224: | Line 205: | ||
|bgcolor=#ffbbbb colspan=2 align=center| <span style="display:none">5</span>[[Later-no-harm criterion#Noncomplying methods|No]] |
|bgcolor=#ffbbbb colspan=2 align=center| <span style="display:none">5</span>[[Later-no-harm criterion#Noncomplying methods|No]] |
||
|bgcolor=#ffbbbb| <span style="display:none">5</span>No |
|bgcolor=#ffbbbb| <span style="display:none">5</span>No |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |bgcolor=#ddffdd| <span style="display:none">2</span>Ambig­uous <ref group=nb name=sodamono>For up to 4 candidates, SODA is monotonic. For more than 4 candidates, it is monotonic for adding an approval, for changing from an approval to a delegation ballot, and for changes in a candidate's preferences. However, if changes in a voter's preferences are executed as changes from a delegation to an approval ballot, such changes are not necessarily monotonic with more than 4 candidates.</ref> |
||
⚫ | |bgcolor=#ddffdd| <span style="display:none">2</span>Up to 4 candidates <ref group=nb name=soda4>For up to 4 candidates, SODA meets the Consistency, Participation, IIA, and Cloneproof criteria. It can fail these criteria in certain rare cases with more than 4 candidates. This is considered almost meeting the Consistency and Participation criteria, which does not intrinsically have to do with numerous candidates, and almost failing the IIA and Cloneproof criteria, which do.</ref> |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
|- |
|- |
||
! [[Sortition|Random winner]]/<br>arbitrary winner<ref group=nb>Random winner: Uniformly randomly chosen candidate is winner. Arbitrary winner: some external entity, not a voter, chooses the winner. These systems are not, properly speaking, voting systems at all, but are included to show that even a horrible system can still pass some of the criteria.</ref> |
! [[Sortition|Random winner]]/<br>arbitrary winner<ref group=nb>Random winner: Uniformly randomly chosen candidate is winner. Arbitrary winner: some external entity, not a voter, chooses the winner. These systems are not, properly speaking, voting systems at all, but are included to show that even a horrible system can still pass some of the criteria.</ref> |
Revision as of 15:52, 6 February 2012
Homunq is busy and is going to be on Wikipedia in off-and-on doses, and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
My first language is English, I speak Spanish fluently (though not perfectly), and I have some understanding of French, Kaqchikel, and Tzotzil. I live in Guatemala. I feel qualified to contribute to Wikipedia (though not a true expert) in high-energy physics (standard model), neurolinguistics (and related), mesoamerica (mayan) history and current events, and voting systems, as well as translating and general editing. You could find out my real name if you wanted to.
This user is a member of WikiProject Mesoamerica. |
You showed support for the Spanish Translation of the Week. This week es:Joaquín Torres García was chosen to be translated to Joaquín Torres García/Translation.
Cast your VOTE to select next week's translation!
I did a lot of work on the following table on voting system. Here's a version with SODA, for when I manage to publish in a reliable source about that method.
Majority/ MMC |
Condorcet/ Majority Condorcet |
Cond. loser |
Monotone |
Consistency/ Participation |
Reversal symmetry |
IIA |
Cloneproof |
Polytime/ Resolvable |
Summable |
Equal rankings allowed |
Later prefs allowed |
Later-no-harm/ Later-no-help |
FBC:No favorite betrayal | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Approval[nb 1] | Ambiguous | No/Strategic yes[nb 2] | No | Yes | [nb 2] | YesYes | Ambiguous | [nb 3] | Ambig.Yes | O(N) | Yes | No | [nb 4] | Yes | |
Borda count | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | teaming) | No (Yes | O(N) | No | Yes | No | No | |
Copeland | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | ISDA) | No (butcrowding) | No (Yes/No | O(N2) | Yes | Yes | No | No | |
IRV (AV) | Yes | No | Yes | No | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | [nb 5] | O(N!)No | Yes | Yes | No | |
Kemeny-Young | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | ISDA) | No (butteaming) | No (No/Yes | [nb 6] | O(N2)Yes | Yes | No | No | |
Majority Judgment[nb 7] | Yes[nb 8] | No/Strategic yes[nb 2] | [nb 9] | NoYes | [nb 10] | No[nb 11] | NoYes | Yes | Yes | [nb 12] | O(N)Yes | Yes | No [nb 13] | Yes | Yes |
Minimax | Yes/No | Yes[nb 14] | No | Yes | No | No | No | spoilers) | No (Yes | O(N2) | Some variants | Yes | No[nb 14] | No | |
Plurality | Yes/No | No | No | Yes | Yes | No | No | spoilers) | No (Yes | O(N) | No | No | [nb 4] | No | |
Range voting[nb 1] | No | No/Strategic yes[nb 2] | No | Yes | [nb 2] | YesYes | [nb 15] | Yes[nb 3] | Ambig.Yes | O(N) | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | |
Ranked pairs | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | ISDA) | No (butYes | Yes | O(N2) | Yes | Yes | No | No | |
Runoff voting | Yes/No | No | Yes | No | No | No | No | spoilers) | No (Yes | [nb 16] | O(N)No | [nb 17] | NoYes[nb 18] | No | |
Schulze | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | ISDA) | No (butYes | Yes | O(N2) | Yes | Yes | No | No | |
SODA voting [nb 19] | Yes | yes | Strategic yes/Yes | [nb 20] | Ambiguous[nb 21] | Up to 4 candidatesYes | [nb 21] | Up to 4 candidates[nb 21] | Up to 4 cand. (then crowds)Yes | O(N) | Yes | [nb 22] | Candidates onlyYes | Yes | |
Random winner/ arbitrary winner[nb 23] |
No | No | No | NA | No | Yes | Yes | NA | Yes/No | O(1) | No | No | Yes | ||
Random ballot[nb 24] | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes/No | O(N) | No | No | Yes |
"Yes/No", in a column which covers two related criteria, signifies that the given system passes the first criterion and not the second one.
Cite error: There are <ref group=nb>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=nb}}
template (see the help page).