Descending solid coalitions

Last updated

Descending Solid Coalitions (DSC) is a ranked-choice voting system. It is designed to preserve the advantages of instant-runoff voting, while satisfying monotonicity. [1] It was developed by voting theorist Douglas Woodall as an improvement on (and replacement for) the use of the alternative vote.

Contents

A minor variant, Descending Acquiescing Coalitions (DAC), counts equal-ranked ballots slightly differently, causing it to fail later-no-harm but satisfy later-no-help. [1]

Procedure

A solid coalition consists of all voters who prefer every member of a set of candidates to every non-member.

DSC assigns every coalition (i.e. set) of candidates a score equal to their total number of supporters. Coalitions are ranked by their number of supporters (in descending order).

At each counting step, all candidates who are not supported by the coalition are eliminated, unless doing so would eliminate all candidates. When only one candidate remains, that candidate is elected. [1]

DAC differs in defining a supporter as a voter who ranks every member of the coalition higher than or equal to every non-member. When neither equal-ranked nor truncated ballots are permitted, the methods are identical. [1] If truncated ballots are allowed, unranked candidates are treated as equally ranked below every ranked candidate.

Properties

DAC satisfies majority, monotonicity, participation, plurality, later-no-help, and independence of clones. [1] DSC satisfies the above properties apart from later-no-help, replacing it with later-no-harm.

It fails the Condorcet criterion, independence of irrelevant alternatives, independence of Smith-dominated alternatives, and the honest favorite criterion.

Comparison to instant-runoff

DAC was intended to serve as a practical alternative to instant-runoff voting, preserving most of the positive attributes of IRV while mitigating many of its downsides. (In this respect, it is similar to approval voting, which is often argued to be a "strict improvement" with few or no downsides compared to plurality.)

DAC maintains the most commonly-cited advantages of IRV, namely independence of clones, later-no-harm, and the mutual majority criterion. [1] However, DAC also satisfies both monotonicity and participation, meaning a candidate cannot lose an election just because they have "too many supporters." [1]

Example

Tennessee map for voting example.svg

Suppose that Tennessee is holding an election on the location of its capital. The population is concentrated around four major cities. All voters want the capital to be as close to them as possible. The options are:

The preferences of each region's voters are:

42% of voters
Far-West
26% of voters
Center
15% of voters
Center-East
17% of voters
Far-East
  1. Memphis
  2. Nashville
  3. Chattanooga
  4. Knoxville
  1. Nashville
  2. Chattanooga
  3. Knoxville
  4. Memphis
  1. Chattanooga
  2. Knoxville
  3. Nashville
  4. Memphis
  1. Knoxville
  2. Chattanooga
  3. Nashville
  4. Memphis

The possible coalitions have the following strengths:

Counting steps:

All candidates other than Nashville have been eliminated, leaving N the winner.

DSC tends to select more moderate alternatives than IRV (Nashville, instead of Knoxville) because it considers all the coalitions that might support a candidate, instead of only considering the highest-ranked candidate who has not been eliminated.

Notice that while half of the votes held Memphis to be the worst alternative, Memphis supporters' votes remained useful in securing their second choice, Nashville. If the Memphis voters had not listed any preferences after Memphis, Chattanooga would be the winner.

Related Research Articles

Score voting or range voting is an electoral system for single-seat elections, in which voters give each candidate a score, the scores are added, and the candidate with the highest total is elected. It has been described by various other names including evaluative voting, utilitarian voting, interval measure voting, point-sum voting, ratings summation, 0-99 voting, and average voting. It is a type of cardinal voting electoral system that aims to approximate the utilitarian social choice rule.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Condorcet method</span> Pairwise-comparison electoral system

A Condorcet method is an election method that elects the candidate who wins a majority of the vote in every head-to-head election against each of the other candidates, whenever there is such a candidate. A candidate with this property, the pairwise champion or beats-all winner, is formally called the Condorcet winner. The head-to-head elections need not be done separately; a voter's choice within any given pair can be determined from the ranking.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Copeland's method</span> Single-winner ranked vote system

Copeland's method, also called Llull's method or round-robin voting, is a ranked-choice voting system based on scoring pairwise wins and losses.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Monotonicity criterion</span> Property of electoral systems

The monotonicity criterion, also called positive response or positive vote weight, is a principle of social choice theory that says that increasing a candidate's rating should not cause them to lose. Positive response rules out cases where a candidate loses an election as a result of receiving too much support from some voters.

Bucklin voting is a class of voting methods that can be used for single-member and multi-member districts. As in highest median rules like the majority judgment, the Bucklin winner will be one of the candidates with the highest median ranking or rating. It is named after its original promoter, the Georgist politician James W. Bucklin of Grand Junction, Colorado, and is also known as the Grand Junction system.

Ranked pairs, sometimes called the Tideman method, is a tournament-style system of ranked-choice voting first proposed by Nicolaus Tideman in 1987.

In an election, a candidate is called a Condorcet, beats-all, or majority-rule winner when a majority of voters support them against any other candidate. Such a candidate is also called an undefeated or tournament champion. Voting systems where a majority-rule winner will always win the election are said to satisfy the majority-rule principle, also known as the Condorcet criterion. Condorcet voting methods extend majority rule to elections with more than one candidate.

The participation criterion, also called vote or population monotonicity, is a voting system criterion that says that a candidate should never lose an election because they have "too much support." It says that adding voters who support A over B should not cause A to lose the election to B.

The Borda count electoral system can be combined with an instant-runoff procedure to create hybrid election methods that are called Nanson method and Baldwin method. Both methods are designed to satisfy the Condorcet criterion, and allow for incomplete ballots and equal rankings.

In voting systems, the Minimax Condorcet method is a single-winner ranked-choice voting method that always elects the majority (Condorcet) winner. Minimax compares all candidates against each other in a round-robin tournament, then ranks candidates by their worst election result. The candidate with the largest (maximum) number of votes in their worst (minimum) matchup is declared the winner.

Positional voting is a ranked voting electoral system in which the options or candidates receive points based on their rank position on each ballot and the one with the most points overall wins. The lower-ranked preference in any adjacent pair is generally of less value than the higher-ranked one. Although it may sometimes be weighted the same, it is never worth more. A valid progression of points or weightings may be chosen at will or it may form a mathematical sequence such as an arithmetic progression, a geometric one or a harmonic one. The set of weightings employed in an election heavily influences the rank ordering of the candidates. The steeper the initial decline in preference values with descending rank, the more polarised and less consensual the positional voting system becomes.

The Kemeny–Young method is an electoral system that uses ranked ballots and pairwise comparison counts to identify the most popular choices in an election. It is a Condorcet method because if there is a Condorcet winner, it will always be ranked as the most popular choice.

The later-no-harm property is a property of some voting systems first described by Douglas Woodall, who defined it as saying that increasing the rating of a later candidate should not hurt a candidate placed earlier on the ballot. For example, say a group of voters have ranked Alice 1st and Bob 3rd. Then, later-no-harm says that if this group increases Bob's rating from 3rd-place to 2nd, this will not allow Bob to defeat Alice.

Proportionality for solid coalitions (PSC) is a fairness criterion for ranked voting systems. It is an adaptation of the proportional representation criterion to voting systems in which there are no parties, the voters can vote directly for candidates, and can rank candidates in any way they want. This criterion was proposed by the British philosopher and logician Michael Dummett.

Schulze STV is a draft single transferable vote (STV) ranked voting system designed to achieve proportional representation. It was invented by Markus Schulze, who developed the Schulze method for resolving ties using a Condorcet method. Schulze STV is similar to CPO-STV in that it compares possible winning candidate pairs and selects the Condorcet winner. It is not used in parliamentary elections.

Instant-runoff voting (IRV), also known as plurality with elimination or plurality loser, is a ranked-choice voting system that modifies plurality by repeatedly eliminating the last-place winner until only one candidate is left. In the United Kingdom, it is generally called the alternative vote (AV). In the United States, IRV is often referred to as ranked-choice voting (RCV), by way of conflation with ranked voting systems in general.

The later-no-help criterion is a voting system criterion formulated by Douglas Woodall. The criterion is satisfied if, in any election, a voter giving an additional ranking or positive rating to a less-preferred candidate can not cause a more-preferred candidate to win. Voting systems that fail the later-no-help criterion are vulnerable to the tactical voting strategy called mischief voting, which can deny victory to a sincere Condorcet winner.


A major branch of social choice theory is devoted to the comparison of electoral systems, otherwise known as social choice functions. Viewed from the perspective of political science, electoral systems are rules for conducting elections and determining winners from the ballots cast. From the perspective of economics, mathematics, and philosophy, a social choice function is a mathematical function that determines how a society should make choices, given a collection of individual preferences.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">STAR voting</span> Single-winner electoral system

STAR voting is an electoral system for single-seat elections. The name stands for "Score then Automatic Runoff", referring to the fact that this system is a combination of score voting, to pick two finalists with the highest total scores, followed by an "automatic runoff" in which the finalist who is preferred on more ballots wins. It is a type of cardinal voting electoral system.

An expanding approvals rule(EAR) is a rule for multi-winner elections, which allows agents to express weak ordinal preferences (i.e., ranking with indifferences), and guarantees a form of proportional representation called proportionality for solid coalitions. The family of EAR was presented by Aziz and Lee.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Woodall, Douglas R. (June 1997). "Monotonicity of single-seat preferential election rules". Discrete Applied Mathematics. 77 (1): 81–98. doi:10.1016/s0166-218x(96)00100-x. ISSN   0166-218X.