Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:47, 20 April 2014

	Electoral system is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 6, 2006.
Article milestones Date Process Result November 12, 2005 Peer review Reviewed December 2, 2005 Featured article candidate Promoted November 3, 2009 Featured article review Demoted
Current status: Former featured article

Politics C‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Can we get a source other than “Cardinal Voting: The Way to Escape the Social Choice Impossibility”?

Below are the problems I see with Cardinal Voting: The Way to Escape the Social Choice Impossibility by Sergei Vasiljev:

1. Assumes voter preferences A:87, B56, C:13 on an approval ballot AB means voter’s cardinal and ordinal preferences are A=B (contradiction).

2. Proves non-dictatorship by assuming a voter can approve candidate A to offset the dictator who approves B, but contradicts by assuming same voter cannot approve A in order to satisfy IIA.

Is there a consensus yet among theorists and how can we know to use this article? Is see no affiliations. Saying all cardinal methods pass Arrow's Impossibility seems like a fantastical claim, given that voters having cardinal weights only adds information to the voter model but does not subtract ordinal information from the voter model.

Filingpro (talk) 09:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

They all "pass" because Arrow's Impossibility theorem applies to preferential voting systems only. It doesn't mean however that cardinal voting should be preferred over preferential voting. Claiming that is like claiming that dictatorship is to be preferred over non-dictatorship. Dictatorship is the easiest way to satisfy IIA. Wat 20 01:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Cardinal models that are dictatorial don't pass Arrow's Impossibility. The point is Vasiljev claims a cardinal model for which all Arrow's criterion are in fact interpreted, applied and pass, but the logic seems to me to have errors. This is why I am asking editors if we can find a better source or if there is any consensus yet in the field. I do not understand the idea that cardinal voting models are not preferential when a voter's cardinal preferences A:87, B:56, C:13 implies A>B>C axiomatically. It seems logically they can not be exempt from preferential theorems.

I see your point and we agree that in order to pass IIA we must adopt a dictatorial model for cardinals, but that doesn't make sense to me to adopt such a model, for say, approval voting, which is not inherently dictatorial. Approval voting only stipulates to vote for any number of candidates. Only by imposing a particular cutoff regime we make it dictatorial. That's why, I am quite confident, Approval voting fails IIA. Approval voting is a preferential system because the voter may express or disguise preferences arbitrarily.

Filingpro (talk) 01:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The reason (most) cardinal systems can be said to "pass" all of Arrow's "incompatible" criteria is that in such systems, erasing a candidate from a ballot does not affect the others. However, doing so can leave an obviously-unstrategic ballot; for instance, an approval ballot that approves all or none, or a score ballot that rates the only two options at 36 and 37 instead of 0 and 100. Arrow's theorem does not account for the possibility of such "strategically incompetent"/"non-admissible"/"watered-down" ballots; it assumes that A>B is always just A>B, not A>>>B or A(>)B.

As soon as you take (competent) strategy into account, you are back in the realm of irresolvable dilemmas (as Gibbard and Satterthwaite proved). Homunq (࿓) 20:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Additional Criteria?

When researching voting systems on the web, I've come across two more interesting criteria. Are they excluded on purpose?

Favorite Betrayal: If the winner is a candidate who is top-voted by you, then moving an additional candidate to top on your ballot shouldn't change the winner to a candidate who is not then top-voted by you.

Chicken Dilemma: http://wiki.electorama.com/Symmetrical_ICT Basically, you shouldn't be able to make your first choice win by rearranging your lower choices.

Myrkron (talk) 21:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Those are not widely accepted criteria. Markus Schulze 08:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Not excluded on purpose, but they appeared only recently, and long after the voting system article was created. But I would point out that these criteria are very similar to IIA and are all incompatible with Condorcet criterion. Wat 20 02:34 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The favorite-betrayal criterion has certainly been known for many years. It had a Misplaced Pages article which seems to have been deleted just last summer. Here is the most recent Wayback Machine snapshot of it, from June, 2013.

Moreover, this very Voting Systems page had the favorite-betrayal criterion included in its table of compliance for nearly all of the last two years, from January, 2012, through October, 2013.

Additionally, and I know this is not at all scientific, a Google search for ("favorite betrayal criterion" -site:wikipedia.org) yields 45,300 results, while ("reversal symmetry criterion" -site:wikipedia.org) yields only 2,360. That is over 18 times more non-Misplaced Pages hits for favorite betrayal criterion than reversal symmetry criterion.

So I propose we reintroduce FBC into the discussion and table of voting system compliance. Qaanol (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

For "favorite betrayal criterion", there are no hits in Google Books. And there are only 4 hits from 3 different authors in Google Scholar. Markus Schulze 15:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Just as a note on books: "Gaming the Vote" by William Poundstone does mention the FBC, but it calls it a "property", not a "criterion". Homunq (࿓) 20:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Add Symmetrical ICT?

I found another voting system which I think complies with the Condorcet Criterion and is designed to also comply with the two criteria mentioned above, Favorite Betrayal and Chicken Dilemma. I don't see it mentioned on Misplaced Pages, so maybe somebody should add a page for it and analyze whether or not it meets the criteria in the table on this page.

http://wiki.electorama.com/Symmetrical_ICT

Myrkron (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Again, those are not widely accepted criteria. Markus Schulze 08:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Qaanol (talk) 02:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Condorcet-IRV method

Why was the Condorcet-IRV method removed from the article? Wat 20 16:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Changes made to citations

I changed a few citations formats, and replaced the shortened citations with the full citations. I also used named references to make those changes. This is the link to my sandbox. https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Lisax31/sandbox1 I am looking forward to your suggestions and feedbacks. Thanks! Lisax31 (talk) 04:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Unrelated topic: I deleted the section that I myself created. I did this after I realized that what I said did not make sense. Sorry - oops - Boyd Reimer (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Misplaced Pages. This, however, doesn't necessaryily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/12/17/51/PDF/stratapproval4.pdf

  Triggered by \bhalshs\.archives-ouvertes\.fr on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II _Online 15:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II _Online 07:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review on Favorite betrayal criterion

The favorite betrayal criterion page has been deleted in accordance with Misplaced Pages policy; that deletion is now undergoing a review. Your comments are welcome. Homunq (࿓) 14:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

RFC - favorite betrayal?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Politics, government, and law Maths, science, and technology When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the favorite betrayal criterion (FBC) be included in the criteria table on this article?

Survey

• Support as RFC originator. This criterion has adequate sourcing and is sufficiently distinct from the other criteria in the table to merit inclusion. In general, this article is improved by including the various criteria that are discussed in regards to voting systems, and one more criterion in the context of many others is not WP:UNDUE. Homunq (࿓) 13:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC) (UNDUE is the issue here, not notability. As WP:GNG clearly states, "If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article.") Homunq (࿓) 15:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The "favorite betrayal criterion" doesn't meet Misplaced Pages's notability criteria. See this discussion and this discussion. Markus Schulze 14:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The FBC refers to how a particular "voting strategy" is handled, rather than a voting criterion per se for this article - and is like all "voting strategies" not directly related to differences in "voting systems." Other strategies include "bullet voting" and "wrong party voting in primaries" etc. None of which are in this article. See Tactical_voting#Push-over Collect (talk) 22:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Huh? This RfC is about the favorite betrayal criterion, not the phenomenon/strategy of favorite betrayal in general. I think that even Schulze wouldn't deny that the FBC is a well-defined criterion which is passed by some voting systems and failed by others — exactly like all the other criteria in this article. What we have to decide here is whether it merits mention here. Perhaps this alternate version of the table would help clarify this point. Homunq (࿓) 22:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I read the article. I looked up papers. The "criterion" is with reference to a particular voting strategy which has been postulated (but not shown to have had any wide usage as it requires fairly precise knowledge of where the vote percentages will end up). It is not, however, directly relevant to this article, but I suggest it might be relevant to the "voting strategy" article. RfCs are "Requests for Comment" and not "Requests for Agreement" by the way. Collect (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

To see references on the FBC, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/Log/2014_April_14 (as the older deletion processes linked from there). These references show that the FBC easily clears the hurdle of WP:V so this debate is about WP:UNDUE. Or, in plain English: nobody disputes the fact that the term "favorite betrayal criterion" refers to something with certain undisputed mathematical properties and a bearing on voting theory; the only question is whether it merits mention in this article. I believe that in cases like this (as long as, as in the current case, there are no other concerns such as WP:BLP) the presumption should be on the side of inclusion.

The reason this merits an RFC, rather than the regular editing process, is that it's reasonable to guess that this would lead to an edit war without an RfC. The Favorite betrayal criterion article has been the subject of an extraordinary 12 processes related to deletion and undeletion, one of which is ongoing at the moment. In recent years, these processes have been spearheaded by two users — User:MarkusSchulze and myself. I am convinced that both of us have acted in good faith in these processes, and that part of the reason that issue has been hard to resolve is that it is a genuine borderline case. However, I think it also bears mention that Schulze is the originator of the Schulze method, and that excluding the FBC from this page here makes his method look better. That's not a clear-cut WP:COI, but it does make me view his arguments with a certain extra skepticism. Homunq (࿓) 13:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

(Note: I believe that, however this RfC is resolved, it will take the pressure off of the deletion/undeletion debate, and, like a beautiful layer of nacre, prevent that debate from being a perpetual grain of sand in the Wikipedian oyster.) Homunq (࿓) 14:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Questions

• Given the history, won't this RfC just get appealed, through one process or another, by whichever of the involved editors considers themselves to have 'lost'? (and then that appeal get appealed, and so on and so on for round after round).
• If this is only going to be the first round of an everlasting Kafkaesque bureaucratic rivalry then is it worth the time of independent editors getting fully acquainted with the issues, arguments and history in this case?

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I for one will abide by this RfC in letter and spirit even if it goes "against" me, and would trust Schulze if he made a similar commitment.

Caveats that should go without saying:

• If the decision is "no", then a new source appears that is unequivocally better than all current sources, such as a peer-reviewed paper with a significant focus on this criterion, I would consider the matter ripe for re-evaluation.
• Obviously, I hope that my reasonableness won't be used against me (ie, I don't want people to argue "let's resolve against homunq simply because he's promised to shut up and Schulze hasn't." But if they don't specifically say that, I won't worry.)

Homunq (࿓) 17:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, of course, the more people participate in this RfC now, the less likely it is that any future wikilawyering from either side will be able to overturn the result. Homunq (࿓) 12:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• I am a bit confused as to *exactly* what is being proposed here, but I did read up on the issue of "Favorite Betrayal" and I think it definitely deserves to be discussed somewhere on Misplaced Pages. 173.160.49.206 (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Split out criteria and table to separate article and transclude?

I'm not going to do this right now, as it would probably be disruptive to the above RfC. However, as soon as that's done with, I think that the criteria and table should be put in their own separate article, transcluded here. That would simplify and separate the discussion; after all, there have already been attempts to effectively give the table its own talk page, but I think that without splitting it out as a sub-article, such attempts are doomed to fail. Homunq (࿓) 16:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages former featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Old requests for peer review
• C-Class politics articles
• High-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment