|
Minimax Condorcet
In voting systems, the Minimax Condorcet method (often referred to as "the Minimax method") is one of several Condorcet methods used for tabulating votes and determining a winner when using ranked voting in a single-winner election. It is sometimes referred to as the Simpson–Kramer method, and the successive reversal method. Minimax selects as the winner the candidate whose greatest pairwise defeat is smaller than the greatest pairwise defeat of any other candidate: or, put another way, "the only candidate whose support never drops below percent" in any pairwise contest. Description of the method The Minimax Condorcet method selects the candidate for whom the greatest pairwise score for another candidate against him or her is the least such score among all candidates. Formal definition Formally, let \operatorname(X,Y) denote the pairwise score for X against Y. Then the candidate, W selected by minimax (aka the winner) is given by: : W = \arg \min_X \left( \max_Y \operator ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Voting System
An electoral system or voting system is a set of rules that determine how elections and referendums are conducted and how their results are determined. Electoral systems are used in politics to elect governments, while non-political elections may take place in business, non-profit organisations and informal organisations. These rules govern all aspects of the voting process: when elections occur, who is allowed to vote, who can stand as a candidate, how ballots are marked and cast, how the ballots are counted, how votes translate into the election outcome, limits on campaign spending, and other factors that can affect the result. Political electoral systems are defined by constitutions and electoral laws, are typically conducted by election commissions, and can use multiple types of elections for different offices. Some electoral systems elect a single winner to a unique position, such as prime minister, president or governor, while others elect multiple winners, such as memb ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Independence Of Clones Criterion
In voting systems theory, the independence of clones criterion measures an election method's robustness to strategic nomination. Nicolaus Tideman was the first to formulate this criterion, which states that the winner must not change due to the addition of a non-winning candidate who is similar to a candidate already present. To be more precise, a subset of the candidates, called a set of clones, exists if no voter ranks any candidate outside the set between (or equal to) any candidates that are in the set. If a set of clones contains at least two candidates, the criterion requires that deleting one of the clones must not increase or decrease the winning chance of any candidate not in the set of clones. In some systems (such as the plurality vote), the addition of a similar candidate divides support between similar candidates, which can cause them both to lose. In some other systems (such as the Borda count), the addition of a similar alternative increases the apparent support fo ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Multiwinner Voting
Multiwinner voting, also called multiple-winner elections or committee voting or committee elections, is an electoral system in which multiple candidates are elected. The number of elected candidates is usually fixed in advance. For example, it can be the number of seats in a country's parliament, or the required number of members in a committee. There are many scenarios in which multiwinner voting is useful. They can be broadly classified into three classes, based on the main objective in electing the committee: # Excellence. Here, each voter is an expert, and each vote expresses his/her opinion about which candidate/s is "better" for a certain task. The goal is to find the "best" candidates. An example application is shortlisting: selecting, from a list of candidate employees, a small set of finalists, who will proceed to the final stage of evaluation (e.g. using an interview). Here, each candidate is evaluated independently of the other candidates. If two candidates are simila ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Wald's Maximin Model
In decision theory and game theory, Wald's maximin model is a non-probabilistic decision-making model according to which decisions are ranked on the basis of their worst-case outcomes – the optimal decision is one with the least bad worst outcome. It is one of the most important models in robust decision making in general and robust optimization in particular. It is also known by a variety of other titles, such as Wald's maximin rule, Wald's maximin principle, Wald's maximin paradigm, and Wald's maximin criterion. Often 'minimax' is used instead of 'maximin'. Definition This model represents a 2-person game in which the \max player plays first. In response, the second player selects the worst state in S(d), namely a state in S(d) that minimizes the payoff f(d,s) over s in S(d). In many applications the second player represents uncertainty. However, there are maximin models that are completely deterministic. The above model is the ''classic'' format of Wald's maximin model. Th ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Minimax
Minimax (sometimes MinMax, MM or saddle point) is a decision rule used in artificial intelligence, decision theory, game theory, statistics, and philosophy for ''mini''mizing the possible loss for a worst case (''max''imum loss) scenario. When dealing with gains, it is referred to as "maximin" – to maximize the minimum gain. Originally formulated for several-player zero-sum game theory, covering both the cases where players take alternate moves and those where they make simultaneous moves, it has also been extended to more complex games and to general decision-making in the presence of uncertainty. Game theory In general games The maximin value is the highest value that the player can be sure to get without knowing the actions of the other players; equivalently, it is the lowest value the other players can force the player to receive when they know the player's action. Its formal definition is: :\underline = \max_ \min_ Where: * is the index of the player of interest. ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Ranked Pairs
Ranked pairs (sometimes abbreviated "RP") or the Tideman method is an electoral system developed in 1987 by Nicolaus Tideman that selects a single winner using votes that express preferences. The ranked-pairs procedure can also be used to create a sorted list of winners. If there is a candidate who is preferred over the other candidates, when compared in turn with each of the others, the ranked-pairs procedure guarantees that candidate will win. Because of this property, the ranked-pairs procedure complies with the Condorcet winner criterion (and is a Condorcet method). Procedure The ranked-pairs procedure operates as follows: # Tally the vote count comparing each pair of candidates, and determine the winner of each pair (provided there is not a tie) # Sort (rank) each pair, by strength of victory, from largest first to smallest last.In fact, there are different ways how the ''strength of a victory'' is measured. This article uses Tideman's original method based on margins of ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Schulze Method
The Schulze method () is an electoral system developed in 1997 by Markus Schulze that selects a single winner using votes that express preferences. The method can also be used to create a sorted list of winners. The Schulze method is also known as Schwartz Sequential dropping (SSD), cloneproof Schwartz sequential dropping (CSSD), the beatpath method, beatpath winner, path voting, and path winner. The Schulze method is a Condorcet method, which means that if there is a candidate who is preferred by a majority over every other candidate in pairwise comparisons, then this candidate will be the winner when the Schulze method is applied. The output of the Schulze method gives an ordering of candidates. Therefore, if several positions are available, the method can be used for this purpose without modification, by letting the ''k'' top-ranked candidates win the ''k'' available seats. Furthermore, for proportional representation elections, a single transferable vote (STV) variant known as ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Later-no-harm
The later-no-harm criterion is a voting system criterion formulated by Douglas Woodall. Woodall defined the criterion as "[a]dding a later preference to a ballot should not harm any candidate already listed." For example, a ranked voting method in which a voter adding a 3rd preference could reduce the likelihood of their 1st preference being selected, fails later-no-harm. Voting systems that fail the later-no-harm criterion are vulnerable to the tactical voting strategies called bullet voting and Tactical voting, burying, which can deny victory to a sincere Condorcet winner. However, the fact that all cardinal voting methods fail the later-no-harm criterion is essential to their favoring consensus options (broad, moderate support) over majoritarian options (narrow, strong support). Complying methods Two-round system, Single transferable vote, Instant Runoff Voting, Contingent vote, Minimax Condorcet (a pairwise opposition variant which does not satisfy the Condorcet Criterion ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Independence Of Irrelevant Alternatives
The independence of irrelevant alternatives (IIA), also known as binary independence or the independence axiom, is an axiom of decision theory and various social sciences. The term is used in different connotation in several contexts. Although it always attempts to provide an account of rational individual behavior or aggregation of individual preferences, the exact formulation differs widely in both language and exact content. Perhaps the easiest way to understand the axiom is how it pertains to casting a ballot. There the axiom says that if Charlie (the irrelevant alternative) enters a race between Alice and Bob, with Alice (leader) liked better than Bob (runner-up), then the individual voter who likes Charlie less than Alice will not switch his vote from Alice to Bob. Because of this, a violation of IIA is commonly referred to as the "spoiler effect": support for Charlie "spoils" the election for Alice, while it "logically" should not have. After all, Alice ''was'' liked better t ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Plurality Criterion
Plurality criterion is a voting system criterion devised by Douglas R. Woodall for ranked voting methods with incomplete ballots. It is stated as follows: :If the number of ballots ranking A as the first preference is greater than the number of ballots on which another candidate B is given any preference, then A's probability of winning must be no less than B's. This criterion is trivially satisfied by rank ballot methods which require voters to strictly rank all the candidates (and so do not allow truncation). The Borda count is usually defined in this way. Woodall has called the Plurality criterion "a rather weak property that surely must hold in any real election" opining that "every reasonable electoral system seems to satisfy it." Most proposed methods do satisfy it, including Plurality voting, IRV, Bucklin voting, and approval voting. Among Condorcet methods which permit truncation, whether the Plurality criterion is satisfied depends often on the measure of defeat stre ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Condorcet Method
A Condorcet method (; ) is an election method that elects the candidate who wins a majority of the vote in every head-to-head election against each of the other candidates, that is, a candidate preferred by more voters than any others, whenever there is such a candidate. A candidate with this property, the ''pairwise champion'' or ''beats-all winner'', is formally called the ''Condorcet winner''. The head-to-head elections need not be done separately; a voter's choice within any given pair can be determined from the ranking. Some elections may not yield a Condorcet winner because voter preferences may be cyclic—that is, it is possible (but rare) that every candidate has an opponent that defeats them in a two-candidate contest.(This is similar to the game rock paper scissors, where each hand shape wins against one opponent and loses to another one). The possibility of such cyclic preferences is known as the Condorcet paradox. However, a smallest group of candidates that beat al ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Condorcet Loser Criterion
In single-winner voting system theory, the Condorcet loser criterion (CLC) is a measure for differentiating voting systems. It implies the majority loser criterion but does not imply the Condorcet winner criterion. A voting system complying with the Condorcet loser criterion will never allow a ''Condorcet loser'' to win. A Condorcet loser is a candidate who can be defeated in a head-to-head competition against each other candidate.https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.05911 "We say that an alternative is a Condorcet loser if it would be defeated by every other alternative in a kind of one-on-one contest that takes place in a sequential pairwise voting with a fixed agenda4.– Condorcet loser criterion (CLC), ..we say that a social choice procedure satisfies the Condorcet loser criterion (CLC) provided that a Condorcet loser is never among the social choices." (Not all elections will have a Condorcet loser since it is possible for three or more candidates to be mutually defeatable in diffe ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
