Current browse context:
stat.ME
Change to browse by:
References & Citations
Statistics > Methodology
Title: Minimax is the best electoral system after all
(Submitted on 14 Jun 2016 (v1), last revised 21 Sep 2016 (this version, v2))
Abstract: When each voter rates or ranks several candidates for a single office, a strong Condorcet winner (SCW) is one who beats all others in two-way races. Among 21 electoral systems examined, 18 will sometimes make candidate X the winner even if thousands of voters would need to change their votes to make X a SCW while another candidate Y could become a SCW with only one such change. Analysis supports the intuitive conclusion that these 18 systems are unacceptable.
The well-known minimax system survives this test. It fails 10 others, but there are good reasons to ignore all 10. Minimax-T adds a new tie-breaker. It surpasses competing systems on a combination of simplicity, transparency, voter privacy, input flexibility, resistance to strategic voting, and rarity of ties. It allows write-ins, machine counting except for write-ins, voters who don't rate or rank every candidate, and tied ratings or ranks.
Eleven computer simulation studies used 6 different definitions (one at a time) of the best candidate, and found that minimax-T always soundly beat all other tested systems at picking that candidate. A new maximum-likelihood electoral system named CMO is the theoretically optimum system under reasonable conditions, but is too complex for use in real-world elections. In computer simulations, minimax and minimax-T nearly always pick the same winners as CMO.
Submission history
From: Richard Darlington [view email][v1] Tue, 14 Jun 2016 13:50:57 GMT (325kb)
[v2] Wed, 21 Sep 2016 16:27:33 GMT (336kb)
Link back to: arXiv, form interface, contact.