advertisement

voting4

33 %
67 %
advertisement
Information about voting4
Entertainment

Published on January 9, 2008

Author: Veronica1

Source: authorstream.com

advertisement

§ 1.6 Rankings:  § 1.6 Rankings “Rome’s biggest contribution to American government was probably its legal system [. . . ] [which] would later form the basis of both the Bill of Rights and a mind-numbing quantity of Law and Order scripts.” - America (The Book) Elections With Rankings:  Elections With Rankings In Lawrence city commission elections, the candidate with the highest number of votes becomes mayor while other candidates are simply commissioners. This is a simple example of an election where more than just the ‘winner’ is important--in these instances we must consider the ranking of each vote-getter. Extended Ranking Methods:  Extended Ranking Methods Each of the four counting methods described earlier this week has a natural extension. Slide4:  Example: Let’s look at the Muppet example again; this time supposing that they are voting for a President, Vice- President and Treasurer. Let us first use the Extended Plurality Method. (This method--along with the weighting of the Electoral College--was originally used in US Presidential Elections.) Counting the first-place votes we get the following results: Office Place Candidate Votes President 1st Piggy 21 Vice-Pres. 2nd Gonzo 15 Treasurer 3rd Fozzie 12 - None - 4th Kermit 7 Slide5:  Example: Now let us see what happens with the Extended Borda Count Method. Tallying the points we find: Office Place Candidate Points President 1st Kermit 160 Vice-Pres. 2nd Gonzo 152 Treasurer 3rd Fozzie 120 - None - 4th Piggy 118 Slide6:  Example: Now let us see what happens with the Extended Plurality-with-Elimination Method. Extending Instant-Runoff Voting is a bit more subtle--we will rank candidates based on when they were eliminated. The first choice that is eliminated will be ranked last. Office Place Candidate Eliminated In President 1st Fozzie --------------------------- Vice-Pres. 2nd Piggy 3rd Round Treasurer 3rd Gonzo 2nd Round - None - 4th Kermit 1st Round Note: If a majority appears before all candidates have been ranked, we will simply continue the process of elimination until all candidates have been ranked. Slide7:  Example: Now showing: Extended Pairwise Comparison Method. After examining all of the possible head-to-head pairings of candidates and awarding points we get: Office Place Candidate Points President 1st Kermit 3 Vice-Pres. 2nd Gonzo 2 Treasurer 3rd Fozzie 1 - None - 4th Piggy 0 Slide8:  Recursive Ranking Methods The four methods we have discussed can also be used to rank candidates in a recursive manner. The Idea: Suppose we use some voting method to find the winner of an election. We will then remove the winner from our preference schedule and find the winner of this ‘new’ election--this candidate will be ranked second. We repeat this process until all candidates have been ranked. Slide9:  Example: Recursive Plurality Method. Step 1. (Choose 1st place.) We have already seen that Piggy wins in a plurality system with 21 votes. Slide10:  Example: Recursive Plurality Method. Step 1. (Choose 1st place.) We have already seen that Piggy wins in a plurality system with 21 votes. Step 2. (Choose 2nd place.) First we remove Piggy from our preference schedule. In this new schedule the winner is Kermit with 28 votes. Slide11:  Example: Recursive Plurality Method. Step 1. (Choose 1st place.) We have already seen that Piggy wins in a plurality system with 21 votes. Step 2. (Choose 2nd place.) First we remove Piggy from our preference schedule. In this new schedule the winner is Kermit with 28 votes. Step 3. (Choose 3rd place.) First remove Kermit from the preference schedule. In this new preference schedule Gonzo wins with 36 votes. Slide12:  Example: Recursive Plurality Method. Under this recursive method we have: Office Place Candidate President 1st Piggy Vice-Pres. 2nd Kermit Treasurer 3rd Gonzo - None - 4th Fozzie Slide13:  Example: Recursive Plurality-with-Elimination Method. Step 1. (Choose 1st place.) Using the Plurality-with-Elimination we have already seen that Fozzie would win. Slide14:  Example: Recursive Plurality-with-Elimination Method. Step 1. (Choose 1st place.) Using the Plurality-with-Elimination we have already seen that Fozzie would win. Step 2. (Choose 2nd place.) First remove Fozzie from the preference schedule. Now we use the plurality-with-elimination method to find a winner. Slide15:  Example: Recursive Plurality-with-Elimination Method. Step 1. (Choose 1st place.) Using the Plurality-with-Elimination we have already seen that Fozzie would win. Step 2. (Choose 2nd place.) First remove Fozzie from the preference schedule. Now we use the plurality-with-elimination method to find a winner. In this case, it is Gonzo. Slide16:  Example: Recursive Plurality-with-Elimination Method. Step 1. (Choose 1st place.) Using the Plurality-with-Elimination we have already seen that Fozzie would win. Step 2. (Choose 2nd place.) First remove Fozzie from the preference schedule. Now we use the plurality-with-elimination method to find a winner. In this case, it is Gonzo. Step 3. (Choose 3rd place.) First remove Gonzo from the schedule. Slide17:  Example: Recursive Plurality-with-Elimination Method. Step 1. (Choose 1st place.) Using the Plurality-with-Elimination we have already seen that Fozzie would win. Step 2. (Choose 2nd place.) First remove Fozzie from the preference schedule. Now we use the plurality-with-elimination method to find a winner. In this case, it is Gonzo. Step 3. (Choose 3rd place.) First remove Gonzo from the schedule. Now Kermit has a majority of the first-place votes in this schedule so he wins third place. Slide18:  Example: Recursive Plurality-with-Elimination Method. Under this recursive method we find: Office Place Candidate President 1st Fozzie Vice-Pres. 2nd Gonzo Treasurer 3rd Kermit - None - 4th Piggy Slide19:  A Final Note: Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem All of the voting methods we have seen so far have violated some form of fairness. The natural question to ask is: “Is there a counting method that can be guaranteed to be both democratic and fair?” Unfortunately, under rigorous definitions of “democratic and fair,” such social choices were shown by economist Kenneth Arrow to be impossible.

Add a comment

Related presentations

Related pages

Marktführer für elektronische Abstimmungen - TED Systeme

art4live der Marktführer für elektronischen Wahlen, elektronische Abstimmungen, TED Votingsystem, Votingsystem, Votesystem.
Read more

Hier entsteht eine neue Internetpräsenz - hosted by 1blu

1blu bietet professionelle Lösungen in den Bereichen Webhosting, Server, vServer und eShops.
Read more

Voting

art4live hat sich auf elektronische Abstimmungen für wichtige Wahlen spezialisiert
Read more

internetdomainstore.de | .voting-Domains zu günstigen Preisen

internetdomainstore.de - Ihr Shop für den Einkauf von .voting Domains und den Eintrag Ihrer Marke im Trademark Clearinghouse.
Read more

VOTING (@voting4_ourboys) | Twitter

The latest Tweets from VOTING (@voting4_ourboys). voting for the boys, if you have tweets you want me to rt just tell me (:
Read more

Voting4Change

Voting4Change. 2,576 likes · 3 talking about this. Voting4Change is a citizen-led initiative that focuses on getting more people out to vote in the next...
Read more

Charts - MTV

In diesem Portal finden sich über zehn verschiedene Charts aus unterschiedlichen Bereichen.
Read more

schlager-box

Voting4; Anzeige: Voting. Welche Schlager Band gefällt ihnen am besten?? Alpenrebellen : Algäupower : Bergfeuer : Calimeros: Combox : Dorfrocker ...
Read more

Voting4Change

Voting4Change is going on vacation!! Like most other Canadians we want to get out and make the most of the construction and mosquito season, also known as ...
Read more

Kostenloses Girokonto, faire Baufinanzierung - Sparda-Bank ...

Wir sind die Bank mit den zufriedensten Kunden. Bei uns gibt es das kostenlose Online-Girokonto inkl. ec- u. Kreditkarte und die fairste Baufinanzierung.
Read more