Suchergebnisse

This is the first of three papers introducing a theory for positional voting methods that determines all possible election rankings and relationships that ever could occur with a profile over all possible subsets of candidates for any specified choices of positional voting methods. As such, these results extend to all positional voting systems what was previously possible only for the Borda Count and the plurality voting systems. In this first part certain mathematical symmetries based on neutrality are used 1) to generalize the basic properties that cause the desired features of the Borda Count and 2) to describe classes of positional voting methods with new types of election relationships among the election outcomes. Some of these relationships generalize the well-known results about the positioning of a Condorcet winner/loser within a Borda ranking, but now it is possible for the Condorcet loser, rather than the winner, to have the advantage to win certain positional elections. Included among the results are axiomatic characterizations of many positional voting methods.

The "finesse point" introduced here extends the notion of a core; it is a position that minimizes what a candidate needs to do to counter moves that are made by an opponent. The definition, which is motivated by the "chaos theorem" as well as by the dynamics of positive and negative political campaigning, is also used to define a "malicious point," which is an optimal location from which a candidate can engage in "negative campaigning."

We develop a geometric approach to identify all possible profiles that support specified votes for separate initiatives or for a bundled bill. This disaggregation allows us to compute the likelihood of different scenarios describing how voters split over the alternatives & to offer new interpretations for pairwise voting. The source of the problems -- an unanticipated loss of available information -- also explains a variety of other phenomena, such as Simpson's paradox (a statistical paradox in which the behavior of the "parts" disagrees with that of the "whole") & Arrow's theorem from social choice. 6 Tables, 4 Figures, 1 Appendix, 23 References. Adapted from the source document.