Political experiment, take 2
Oct. 18th, 2004 02:01 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
triadruidThanks to input from ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
lysana and others, I have revamped the Condorcet voting poll I posted a few days ago. As before, feel free to cross-post this to your own journal or appropriate communities to increase the sample size; despite being self-selected, I hope it will be useful to show any flaws in the Condorcet voting system. I am particularly interested in how unusual voting patterns such as ties and partial ballots affect the total result.
The Condorcet method is a system that utilizes preferential ranking, rather than a single choice. The aim is to eliminate "strategic voting" or "lesser of two evils" voting, as well as provide a meaningful way to support third-party candidates. The winner of a Condorcet election is that person who wins all pairwise matchups, i.e. Anderson vs. Baker, Baker vs. Connor, Connor vs. Anderson, etc. This poll is designed to test that theory, when it comes to the 2004 Presidential election. *All candidates on a statistically meaningful number of state ballots (i.e. they would actually have a chance of winning, based on the 2000 election returns) have been included; as much as I'd like to include the right to vote for Marilyn Chambers, she is running-mate (pun fully intended) on only a handful of ballots). There was one exception to the inclusions: The Socialist Workers Party selected a slate of candidates who are ineligible to hold the offices they are running for (one is a naturalized citizen, the other is too young). The other major Socialist Party was included, however, as were the Greens. Ralph Nader has been classified as (primarily) an Independent, despite using Reform Party ballot access in some states.
The candidates are listed in alphabetical order by party; this seemed the fairest option. You may rank candidates as ties if you wish, or refuse to rank certain candidates at all (thereby assigning them a rank of '8', effectively). If you choose one and only one candidate, your vote will have exactly the same effect as the current single-choice system; I don't want to discourage this, as I am curious as to what effect it will have. At the conclusion of the poll (sometime before November 1st) I will tabulate the results of the pairings and the eventual winner.
::edit:: Results of the quiz (I've left a link up in case you want to run your own analysis) can now be found here:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/triadruid/84347.html
lysana and others, I have revamped the Condorcet voting poll I posted a few days ago. As before, feel free to cross-post this to your own journal or appropriate communities to increase the sample size; despite being self-selected, I hope it will be useful to show any flaws in the Condorcet voting system. I am particularly interested in how unusual voting patterns such as ties and partial ballots affect the total result.The Condorcet method is a system that utilizes preferential ranking, rather than a single choice. The aim is to eliminate "strategic voting" or "lesser of two evils" voting, as well as provide a meaningful way to support third-party candidates. The winner of a Condorcet election is that person who wins all pairwise matchups, i.e. Anderson vs. Baker, Baker vs. Connor, Connor vs. Anderson, etc. This poll is designed to test that theory, when it comes to the 2004 Presidential election. *All candidates on a statistically meaningful number of state ballots (i.e. they would actually have a chance of winning, based on the 2000 election returns) have been included; as much as I'd like to include the right to vote for Marilyn Chambers, she is running-mate (pun fully intended) on only a handful of ballots). There was one exception to the inclusions: The Socialist Workers Party selected a slate of candidates who are ineligible to hold the offices they are running for (one is a naturalized citizen, the other is too young). The other major Socialist Party was included, however, as were the Greens. Ralph Nader has been classified as (primarily) an Independent, despite using Reform Party ballot access in some states.
The candidates are listed in alphabetical order by party; this seemed the fairest option. You may rank candidates as ties if you wish, or refuse to rank certain candidates at all (thereby assigning them a rank of '8', effectively). If you choose one and only one candidate, your vote will have exactly the same effect as the current single-choice system; I don't want to discourage this, as I am curious as to what effect it will have. At the conclusion of the poll (sometime before November 1st) I will tabulate the results of the pairings and the eventual winner.
::edit:: Results of the quiz (I've left a link up in case you want to run your own analysis) can now be found here:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/triadruid/84347.html
