A Final Report on the Election

Here you might discuss basically everything.

Moderator: SC Moderators

User avatar
Bromo Ivory
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1428
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2024 11:38 am

Re: A Final Report on the Election

Post by Bromo Ivory »

Beathan wrote:

I was personally misled by pre-election vote mongering by a Faction which, it turns out, was engaged in electoral manipulations specifically calculated to damage the standing of my Party. That is politics, yes -- but so is the rational response to penalize such tactics next time around.

Interestingly enough - I ranked the SP higher than you ranked nuCARE in the rank list. Interesting. With this new information I would not feel right about ranking you as highly as I did before - or even elimination if there was more than one party setting up to punish as you were.

(Ironic that I am your constituent more than you are mine. Jon is right that we are interlinked though. And an elimination war may not serve CDS very well)

Hmmm ... seems to me that the Borda system is breaking down possibly as we sit here and debate and moving toward a proportional representation system.

I am hopeful the RA is taking note and the factions work together to address this possible polarization. That is, unless they think this is a good outcome.

==
"Nenia peno nek provo donos lakton de bovo."

Beathan
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:42 pm

Re: A Final Report on the Election

Post by Beathan »

Bromo --

Thanks for supporting my Faction. However, please do not confuse me with my faction or think that I speak for my faction on this thread (I have provided a link to a post I made setting forth some factional positions -- but everything I posted on this thread was me speaking as me, not me attempting to set forth the SP position). Frankly, I know that I am the most prickly member of the SP. There is a reason why Brian has been the senior representative both this term and last. The SP, sharing your concerns about my personality, consistently votes for me as a last resort and with great reluctance. In fact, I vote for me only with great reluctance. ;-)

The SP has shown that we will rank -- but not reject -- all the factions in the CDS. I have set forth my own ranking system -- not as something I expect SP members to follow (indeed, I expect SP members to make up their own minds rather than following my ranking system) -- but, rather, to show folly of the particular election strategy used by the early voters from NuCARE (who are the NuCARE supporters I would expect to be most in tune with the NuCARE partyline in the last election).

Interestingly, while a tit-for-tat retaliation leads to an optimal correction in the prisoner's dilemma, there is a circumstance in which it results in bad results for both players -- when the party that initiated the response fails to correct the behavior that prompted the retaliation in the first place. In such case, both parties suffer. The only party that would suffer more would be the doormat -- who allows misbehavior of the other party without response. However, provided both parties are able to adjust their behavior to become trustworthy, both benefit.

That said, I am willing to lose the support of NuCARE -- to have my faction ranked last by NuCARE members in a protest vote against me personally -- provided that there is no longer a systematic attempt by the party to game the system through collective action. I hope, just because there is the possibility of manipulating an election, that the Parties will have the integrity to refrain from doing so. Otherwise, I am afraid that the CDS could become as anti-democratic as the elections under the reign of Tammany Hall.

That said, while I was thinking about antidemocratic elections, I think I came to see Cindy's concern about the examination of votes midstream. It is a short step (but a critical step -- and one that Jon did not take) between observation of votes during election and manipulation of votes during the election. Looking in a ballot box is a short step from stuffing the ballot box. As bad as Tammany Hall was -- it was not as bad as the Diebold-stolen elections in Florida in 2000; Ohio in 2004; and the New Hampshire Democratic primary in 2008. However, given the size of our electorate and the process of vote confirmation, I think we are a long way from the problems we face iRL computerized elections.

Beathan Vale

Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
Jon Seattle
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 648
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 6:18 am

Re: A Final Report on the Election

Post by Jon Seattle »

Bromo Ivory wrote:

It made me nervous when Jon reported the findings the way he did (with obvious access to insider knowledge during the election) - and I understand Cindy's concern about it - though I know Jon well, and I do believe he is trying to duly report the results and has done nothing actually wrong. I do think it would be prudent in the future for anyone privy to results have some sort of "no comment" period to avoid even the appearance.

Thanks Bromo! I appreciate your saying this. The SC required that I delay posting on this issue until after the first meeting of the RA. It did not work completely, Pat commented on the aggregate numbers, and the SC themselves posted their decision. (And by the way, I do agree with the SC's decision on this, as corrected.)

Jon Seattle
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 648
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 6:18 am

Re: A Final Report on the Election

Post by Jon Seattle »

Ah, now I get to post more of the dull math stuff! (I love it, so I hope it won’t be too bad.) I apologize to people who are already familiar with this. This post is just background and not policy, but it lays out a method we could use to discuss possible alternatives.

Basically in a Borda count system, participants rank a series of options, say A, B, C, D and the system assigns a certain number of points to each. In order of preference, those numbers are:

4, 3, 2, 1.

When I say “normalize” I am reducing each of these to a number from 0 to 1, in this case by dividing all of them by 4:

1.00, 0.75, 0.50, 0.25

If you held an election with these normalized values, you could get back to the original Borda counts by multiplying the totals by 4. I did this because I want to be able to compare the values with the voter’s utility ratings. Say a voter rated each faction with a number between 0 and 1. Note that these are not an allocation of points, just their independent opinion of each option, for example:

0.90, 0.75, 0.50, 0.50

In the examples in the prior post, I assume that voters will use the Borda counts to express their preferences as best they can, within the limits of the system. They will look for an arrangement of Borda scores that best express their own ratings, but the numbers will be a bit off, in this case the difference is:

1.00 - 0.90, 0.75 - 0.75, 0.50 - 0.50, 0.25 - 0.50 =

0.10, 0, 0, -0.25

By having to vote using Borda counts, this voter ended up voting their first faction a little higher, and their last ranked faction a larger amount lower than they would have liked. You may ask “why not ask voters to just vote their preference ratings?” I will go into that in the next post, but the problem is if you do so the system becomes much easier to manipulate.

Now, we can think of a voter having two sets of ratings before they vote. Here is a silly example, to make the point. Imagine a system using Borda counts where there is only one winner, and that winner is the faction with the second highest number of Borda points. Most voters know this quirk except for a few new people who have not yet gotten the message. Then we have the voter’s ratings:

0.90, 0.75, 0.50, 0.50

But by giving the highest rating to their preferred faction they run the risk of making it first. So they may try voting as if they had the preference:

0.75, 1.00, 0.50, 0.25

In order to try and give another faction first place. Notice how this kind of voting is very tricky, really the “as if” rating depends on how that person thinks other voters will vote. It is no longer an independent expression of preferences, but a calculated move in a complex multi-person game.

A voting system may or may not reward a voter for voting in a way that differs from their their true preference. All of this depends on both the system and what that person believes about other voters.

Cindy Ecksol
Master Word Wielder
Master Word Wielder
Posts: 449
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:37 pm

Re: A Final Report on the Election

Post by Cindy Ecksol »

Jon Seattle wrote:

Ah, now I get to post more of the dull math stuff! (I love it, so I hope it won’t be too bad.) I apologize to people who are already familiar with this. This post is just background and not policy, but it lays out a method we could use to discuss possible alternatives.

Basically in a Borda count system, participants rank a series of options, say A, B, C, D and the system assigns a certain number of points to each. In order of preference, those numbers are:

4, 3, 2, 1.

Whoa, Jon! This (and your other analysis) is just not correct, at least not according to Sleazy Writer's updated election guide! Take a look at http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php? ... ount#p9449 . You've illustrated one version of the Borda system, but there are others, and CDS uses a different one. In our current election with four factions, three points should have been assigned to the top choice, 2 to the second choice, 1 to the third choice and 0 to the last choice! This certainly will change your analysis considerably, and I encourage you to go back and re-calculate so that we can get the REAL picture. But I will comment here that while we've been busy arguing about whether it's appropriate to utilize the "elimination option" built into our system, in fact even those who rank all 4 factions will be eliminating the 4th-ranked faction since it is assigned zero points.

Now I'm actually wondering how the system was programmed: did it conform to Sleazy's published election guide (which all were encouraged to review) or did you mistakenly program it according to your misunderstanding of the CDS system?

Cindy

Beathan
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:42 pm

Re: A Final Report on the Election

Post by Beathan »

I agree with Cindy on this. I understood that the votes would be counted: 3/2/1/0, so that a 4th place was the equivalent of a "no vote".

However, I did some rough figuring from the charts last week, and I figured that this difference does not change this election outcome. That said, I think we have found the first electoral issue for the RA to discuss.

Beathan

Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
Cindy Ecksol
Master Word Wielder
Master Word Wielder
Posts: 449
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:37 pm

Re: A Final Report on the Election

Post by Cindy Ecksol »

Beathan wrote:

I agree with Cindy on this. I understood that the votes would be counted: 3/2/1/0, so that a 4th place was the equivalent of a "no vote".

However, I did some rough figuring from the charts last week, and I figured that this difference does not change this election outcome. That said, I think we have found the first electoral issue for the RA to discuss.

Beathan

Yes that's true: it should not change the election results, but it certainly does change Jon's analysis. I will be interested to see the revised analysis and will wait to comment on Jon's interpretation until he has completed it.

Cindy

Jon Seattle
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 648
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 6:18 am

Re: A Final Report on the Election

Post by Jon Seattle »

Its a non-issue. The SC and I have already had this discussion with Sleazy. I implemented Broda counts as the constitution requires, using the published definition from seven different sources. Borda counts typically start with one. And it did not matter one bit in this election. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borda_count .)

1. The difference between 1 and 0 based Borda counts is to add a constant to every count for every faction.
2. In this election, I programmed both methods to make sure, and there was no difference in outcome.
3. The scores published were the consistent with the published definition, and there is unlikley to be a difference, but I would prefer we use zero-based counts in future elections. However, the constitution will have to be changed to allow this.

Here is more on each point:

1. The difference between 1 and 0 based Borda counts is to add a constant to every count.

Lets compare some votes for factions A, B, C, D. A 1-based vote, and a 0-based vote. See how they add up:

Vote: ABCD
1-based: A add: 4, B add: 3, C add: 2, D add: 1
0-based: A add: 3, B add: 2, C add: 1

Difference: A add: 1, B add: 1, C add: 1, D add: 1

Vote: ABC_ (note that excluded are counted at the lowest point level, 1 or 0)
1-based: A add: 4, B add: 2, C add: 2, D add: 1
0-based: A add: 3, B add: 2, C add: 1

Difference: A add: 1, B add: 1, C add: 1, D add: 1

Vote: AB_ _
1-based: A add: 4, B add: 2, C add: 1, D add: 1
0-based: A add: 3, B add: 2

Difference: A add: 1, B add: 1, C add: 1, D add: 1

Vote: A_ _ _
1-based: A add: 4, B add: 1, C add: 1, D add: 1
0-based: A add: 3

Difference: A add: 1, B add: 1, C add: 1, D add: 1

In other words: The difference between the 0-based and 1-based systems is to add one point to each faction, equally for each voter.

2. In this election, I programmed both methods to make sure, and there was no difference in outcome.

Output from the program:

Code: Select all

Unmodified 0-based Borda count election with 0 point added for each unranked faction.
7 seats will be allocated to parties CSDF, DPU, NuCARE, SP.

Final Borda counts: CSDF = 84, DPU = 48, NuCARE = 54, SP = 59

Sainte Lague Process for 7 Seats
Final seat allocation:
CSDF = 2, DPU = 1, NuCARE = 2, SP = 2

3. The scores published were the consistent with the published definition, and there is unlikley to be a difference, but I would prefer we use zero-based counts in future elections. However, the constitution will have to be changed to allow this

In general I favor a zero based way of counting, (the math is simpler) but there are trade offs that have to be considered. The total number of Borda points available in a zero-based election p depends on the number of voters v, and the number of factions f:

p = v * f * (v - 1) / 2

This is constant for any one election. We can write the results of an election as s(i) where i is the faction number where s(i) is the proportion of all available points earned by that faction. The number of Borda points faction i gets will be:

p * s(i)

The ordering of factions will never change for a one-based Borda vs a zero-based election because a constant, the number of voters, is added to the zero-based Borda counts to give the one-based counts. Likewise if s(A) > s(B) then faction A will always have equal or greater number of seats. The real question is when is the number of seats equal or greater and by how many seats.

Since we use a proportional allocation scheme for seats, seat allocation will depend on the ratio of Borda counts. The ratio of Borda counts for factions A and B in a zero-based election is:

s(A) / s(B)

The ratio between of Borda counts for A and B for the one-based election we just held is:

[s(A) + 1/6] / [s(B) + 1/6]

The difference between the two ratios decreases towards 0 as S(A) and S(B) get closer and is always positive if S(A) is greater than S(B), so there is a slight disadvantage for factions with higher scores in the one-based election. A difference that, in our election, did not change the seat allocation.

Take, in our case, an election with 264 points, and say zero-based Borda counts for faction A is 84 (S(A) = 0.32) and faction B is 59 (S(B) = 0.22). The ratio is approx 1.24 under the one-based election, but 1.42 under the zero-based election. We would have to have more than five seats per faction for this to result in an additional seat for faction A.

Beathan
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:42 pm

Re: A Final Report on the Election

Post by Beathan »

Jon --

I get this -- but is a "no vote" treated as 1 or as 0. I understood that the "no vote" would be given the same weight as a last-place vote when I supported the "no vote" option in election reform last term.

That is, is a a/b/c/d borda vote treated the same as a a/b/c/novote vote. If not, then the election did not work the way I expected it to work when I voted for the electoral reform.

According to my analysis, this is a nonissue in the last election -- but it is something that the RA will need to look at this term.

Beathan

Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
Jon Seattle
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 648
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 6:18 am

Re: A Final Report on the Election

Post by Jon Seattle »

Beathan wrote:

I get this -- but is a "no vote" treated as 1 or as 0. I understood that the "no vote" would be given the same weight as a last-place vote when I supported the "no vote" option in election reform last term.

Yes, "no vote" is counted with a single point in our 1-based Borda election. It is not counted as a zero. If you look carefully at my analysis above, it reflects this.

Best,

Jonathan

Beathan
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:42 pm

Re: A Final Report on the Election

Post by Beathan »

Ah -- so it does. Sorry.

Based on that, I have absolutely no problem with this method or these calculations. I am well-satisfied that the election was run and worked as designed.

Thanks Jon

Beathan

Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
Cindy Ecksol
Master Word Wielder
Master Word Wielder
Posts: 449
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:37 pm

Re: A Final Report on the Election

Post by Cindy Ecksol »

Jon Seattle wrote:
Beathan wrote:

I get this -- but is a "no vote" treated as 1 or as 0. I understood that the "no vote" would be given the same weight as a last-place vote when I supported the "no vote" option in election reform last term.

Yes, "no vote" is counted with a single point in our 1-based Borda election. It is not counted as a zero. If you look carefully at my analysis above, it reflects this.

Best,

Jonathan

Jon, your analysis of the vote totals will not change. But your analysis of the relative differences in the normalized values in different scenarios certainly will change. Just for starters, the normalized Borda count when all four parties are ranked will be 1.00, 0.67, 0.33, 0 with relative differences of .34 or .33. It's certainly worthwhile to go back and re-calculate before giving interpretations.

I'll also note that you're only analyzing one case: increasing the number of parties certainly clarifies the picture in a different way.

Cindy

Jon Seattle
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 648
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 6:18 am

Re: A Final Report on the Election

Post by Jon Seattle »

Cindy Ecksol wrote:

Jon, your analysis of the vote totals will not change. But your analysis of the relative differences in the normalized values in different scenarios certainly will change. Just for starters, the normalized Borda count when all four parties are ranked will be 1.00, 0.67, 0.33, 0 with relative differences of .34 or .33. It's certainly worthwhile to go back and re-calculate before giving interpretations.

I am amused that you think so. None of my conclusions change, and in general the effect of the strategy increases as the magnitudes of the effects are computed relative to a smaller total.

1. Jane / Paula Example For Zero-Based Borda Counts

Jane Expects:

Jane: B, A, C, D
Paula: A, B, C, D

The resulting scores would be: A = 5 (42%), B = 5 (42%), C = 2 (17%), D = 0 (0%). But instead the actual votes are:

Jane: B, A, C, D
Paula: A x x x

The resulting scores are: A = 5 (56%), B = 3 (33%), C = 1 (11%), D = 0 (0%).

By using this tactic instead of a mutual ranking, Paula has won an extra 23% of the Borda points for her preferred faction over the Jane’s choice. The tactic also decreased the percentage score of Jane’s third place faction. Note that the strategy is stronger than for one-based counts.

2. Expressiveness

Zero-based Borda counts:

3, 2, 1, 0

Normalized zero-based Borda counts:

1.0, 0.67, 0.33, 0.00

With elimination you get a sudden drop between the last ranked faction and the others. The correct way to compute the drop is relative to the average of the counts that would have been assigned to the eliminated factions had they not been eliminated.

1.0, 0.67, 0.33, 0.00 no difference
1.0, 0.67, 0.00, 0.00 drop: 0.165 for each of two factions
1.0, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 drop: 0.333 for each of three factions

Cindy Ecksol wrote:

I'll also note that you're only analyzing one case: increasing the number of parties certainly clarifies the picture in a different way.

Not in the least. All my examples use four parties. Perhaps you mean increasing the number of voters? How do I know that strategic voting did not change the outcome of this election?

Beathan
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:42 pm

Re: A Final Report on the Election

Post by Beathan »

Jon --

I've spent some time thinking through the problem people have with the idea that the borda count system requires that they vote for parties they oppose. You are far better at number cruching than I am. Can you think about and analyze the effects of the following:

each voter can rank two factions in positive preference and two factions in negative preference; or "no vote" any factions. A 1/2 positive rank would be worth 2 and 1 points respectively. A 1/2 negative rate would be worth -2 and -1 points respectively. A "no vote" is worth 0.

My hunch is that this would not change the results a bit -- but would feel better to people who don't want to feel like they are voting for a party they don't like.

Beathan

Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
mtlundquist
Casual contributor
Casual contributor
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 8:13 am

Re: A Final Report on the Election

Post by mtlundquist »

I refer you to my post on ThePrincess Speaks thread

http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1591

"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything." Joseph Stalin
"It's not the voting that's democracy; it's the counting" Stoppard
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”