Task:Define voting procedure for Community Council elections: Difference between revisions
imported>generalantilles No edit summary |
imported>benson Added proposal |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Due to the noise generated by the voting procedure from the first election, the procedure needs to be reevaluated and a better system needs to be put in place for the next election. | Due to the noise generated by the voting procedure from the first election, the procedure needs to be reevaluated and a better system needs to be put in place for the next election. | ||
== Proposal: RRV == | |||
=== Variables === | |||
*<math>l</math>: number of voters | |||
*<math>m</math>: number of candidates | |||
*<math>n</math>: number of seats | |||
*<math>i</math>: index of voters (<math>1 \le i \le l</math>) | |||
*<math>j</math>: index of candidates (<math>1 \le j \le m</math>) | |||
*<math>k</math>: index of seats (and rounds) (<math>1 \le k \le n</math>) | |||
=== Parameters === | |||
A range for votes is selected by two limits, <math>a_{max}</math> and <math>a_{min}</math>. | |||
Reasonable choices include: | |||
*<math>a_{min}=0</math>, <math>a_{max}=1</math> (unbalanced, normalized) | |||
*<math>a_{min}=-1</math>, <math>a_{max}=1</math> (balanced) | |||
*<math>a_{min}=0</math>, <math>a_{max}=100</math> (unbalanced percentage; potentially useful if ratings were to be quantized) | |||
The effects of the voting system are generally independent of the limits selected, but a balanced range ''may'' be preferred by some voters to permit unknown candidates to be rated 0 with known, disliked candidates rated negative. Obviously this effect may be accomplished in an unbalanced range by rating unknown candidates <math>\tfrac{a_{min} + a_{max}}{2}</math>. Some calculations are simplified by using the unbalanced, normalized range, which makes it preferable from a numerical perspective. | |||
A ballot from voter <math>i</math> consists of <math>m</math> ratings <math>a_{ij}</math> for the <math>m</math> candidates, such that <math>a_{min} \le a_{ij} \le a_{max}</math>. | |||
=== Procedure === | |||
After all ballots are collected, <math>n</math> rounds are held to choose the winners <math>w_{k}</math>, with one winner chosen per round. In the first round, the weighted ratings for each voter are initialized as <math>b_{ij1}=a_{ij}</math>. The weighted scores in each round are summed: | |||
<math>B_{jk}=\sum_{i=1}^{l}b_{ijk}</math> | |||
The highest-scoring candidate not yet elected wins; this is not simple to express formally: | |||
<math>w_k = \max ( B_{jk} \ni j \notin w_{1 \cdots k-1})</math> | |||
The weighted scores for each succeeding round are calculated by de-emphasizing ballots according to the portion in which they've already won: | |||
<math>b_{ij(k+1)}=\frac{a_{ij}}{1+\sum_{p=1}^{k}\tfrac{a_{iw_p}-a_{min}}{a_{max}-a_{min}}}</math> | |||
In the case of an unbalanced range (<math>a_{min} = 0</math>), <math>b_{ij(k+1)}=\frac{a_{ij}}{1+\sum_{p=1}^{k}\tfrac{a_{iw_p}}{a_{max}}}</math>, and in the normalized case (<math>a_{max} = 1</math>), <math>b_{ij(k+1)}=\frac{a_{ij}}{1+\sum_{p=1}^{k}a_{iw_p}}</math>. | |||
== Discussions == | == Discussions == | ||
Revision as of 07:36, 3 December 2008
| This is an ongoing task, planned to be completed during the current maemo.org development sprint. Any help is appreciated! Please see the talk page for discussion. |
Due to the noise generated by the voting procedure from the first election, the procedure needs to be reevaluated and a better system needs to be put in place for the next election.
Proposal: RRV
Variables
- <math>l</math>: number of voters
- <math>m</math>: number of candidates
- <math>n</math>: number of seats
- <math>i</math>: index of voters (<math>1 \le i \le l</math>)
- <math>j</math>: index of candidates (<math>1 \le j \le m</math>)
- <math>k</math>: index of seats (and rounds) (<math>1 \le k \le n</math>)
Parameters
A range for votes is selected by two limits, <math>a_{max}</math> and <math>a_{min}</math>. Reasonable choices include:
- <math>a_{min}=0</math>, <math>a_{max}=1</math> (unbalanced, normalized)
- <math>a_{min}=-1</math>, <math>a_{max}=1</math> (balanced)
- <math>a_{min}=0</math>, <math>a_{max}=100</math> (unbalanced percentage; potentially useful if ratings were to be quantized)
The effects of the voting system are generally independent of the limits selected, but a balanced range may be preferred by some voters to permit unknown candidates to be rated 0 with known, disliked candidates rated negative. Obviously this effect may be accomplished in an unbalanced range by rating unknown candidates <math>\tfrac{a_{min} + a_{max}}{2}</math>. Some calculations are simplified by using the unbalanced, normalized range, which makes it preferable from a numerical perspective.
A ballot from voter <math>i</math> consists of <math>m</math> ratings <math>a_{ij}</math> for the <math>m</math> candidates, such that <math>a_{min} \le a_{ij} \le a_{max}</math>.
Procedure
After all ballots are collected, <math>n</math> rounds are held to choose the winners <math>w_{k}</math>, with one winner chosen per round. In the first round, the weighted ratings for each voter are initialized as <math>b_{ij1}=a_{ij}</math>. The weighted scores in each round are summed:
<math>B_{jk}=\sum_{i=1}^{l}b_{ijk}</math>
The highest-scoring candidate not yet elected wins; this is not simple to express formally:
<math>w_k = \max ( B_{jk} \ni j \notin w_{1 \cdots k-1})</math>
The weighted scores for each succeeding round are calculated by de-emphasizing ballots according to the portion in which they've already won:
<math>b_{ij(k+1)}=\frac{a_{ij}}{1+\sum_{p=1}^{k}\tfrac{a_{iw_p}-a_{min}}{a_{max}-a_{min}}}</math>
In the case of an unbalanced range (<math>a_{min} = 0</math>), <math>b_{ij(k+1)}=\frac{a_{ij}}{1+\sum_{p=1}^{k}\tfrac{a_{iw_p}}{a_{max}}}</math>, and in the normalized case (<math>a_{max} = 1</math>), <math>b_{ij(k+1)}=\frac{a_{ij}}{1+\sum_{p=1}^{k}a_{iw_p}}</math>.