Timeline for Ranked voting by a committee when some members cannot vote for a particular candidate because of a conflict of interest
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 9, 2022 at 21:42 | comment | added | Paŭlo Ebermann | I guess if enough comittee members have (different) conflicts of interest, there might be pairs of candidates which won't pair of against each other at all, so you might have multiple "Concordet-winners". | |
| Sep 8, 2022 at 15:51 | comment | added | Little Endian | Not sure I was clear about the scoring part. So, ignore scoring and I'll reframe the "normalization" bit in terms of Shulze: The Shulze method fails IIA as well. In fact, it "strictly prefers all ranked to all unranked candidates". So, the conflict-of-interest becomes, in effect, the least preferred candidate. A better way to handle this is to augment a Shulze-like ballot to allow the voter to specify negative marks. In that way the voter can say "I'm indifferent about those candidates (unranked), but I really don't want these candidates (negative marks)". | |
| Sep 8, 2022 at 6:24 | comment | added | Rad80 | @LittleEndian unfortunately a default average score would fail the Independence from Irrelevant Alternatives criterion badly. When top candidates score high, an average mark will put you out of the race in practice. | |
| Sep 7, 2022 at 23:11 | comment | added | Little Endian | +1 for mentioning Condorcet. This can be used in conjunction with scoring-style ballots, too. A scoring ballot normalized to 0 easily allows a candidate to have a default score: 0. So conflict of interest is easily handled. | |
| Sep 7, 2022 at 14:06 | history | edited | Rad80 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
expanded and provided links
|
| Sep 7, 2022 at 13:59 | history | answered | Rad80 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |