• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

The straw poll results from CPAC you were waiting on

 
 
 
S

SimpleDon

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2008
Messages
3,312
Location
Atlanta, USA
Basic Beliefs
Social Justice
the results are in from the CPAC straw poll for president.

B-9s8yRUwAAERqV.png

it is going to be an interesting 18 months.
 
I hate FPTP polls. They don't measure how well candidates are liked. The best we get is that 25.7% like Rand Paul as their favorite. How does the other 74.3% feel about him though? They should at least do a second poll with approval voting. I'd bet the only reason Rand Paul does so well is because the other candidates split the vote.
 
Blahface said:
I hate FPTP polls. They don't measure how well candidates are liked. The best we get is that 25.7% like Rand Paul as their favorite. How does the other 74.3% feel about him though? They should at least do a second poll with approval voting. I'd bet the only reason Rand Paul does so well is because the other candidates split the vote.
Click to expand...

Now that would be a cool thing. Having CPAC or other big conventions use instant runoff or the other types of voting to try to get a real answer, thereby proving how much better a system it is. :D
 
Looks like a top-preference poll. I would like to see what a rated-vote or a preference-vote poll would look like. Even subsets of rated voting would be OK, like approval voting.

ETA: Blahface beat me to it.
 
I think it is all bozos on that bus!
Don't forget to inflate your shoes before crossing the water!
 
SimpleDon said:
bleubird said:
I think it is all bozos on that bus!
Don't forget to inflate your shoes before crossing the water!
Click to expand...

Little Green Footballs compared it to a clown car.
Click to expand...

Not all clown cars look traditional
in+hillcar+saluting.jpg
 
bleubird said:
I think it is all bozos on that bus!
Don't forget to inflate your shoes before crossing the water!
Click to expand...

Another possibility and perhaps a little older reference would be the traditional ship of fools. Sure wish those fools didn't have so much money to invest in their tomfoolery!:worried:
 
Rhea said:
Blahface said:
I hate FPTP polls. They don't measure how well candidates are liked. The best we get is that 25.7% like Rand Paul as their favorite. How does the other 74.3% feel about him though? They should at least do a second poll with approval voting. I'd bet the only reason Rand Paul does so well is because the other candidates split the vote.
Click to expand...
Now that would be a cool thing. Having CPAC or other big conventions use instant runoff or the other types of voting to try to get a real answer, thereby proving how much better a system it is. :D
Click to expand...

There are two basic kinds of voting methods: rated voting and preference voting. First past the post is a degenerate case of both of them.


Rated: give a rating to each candidate, a rating between two values. Then add up all the rating values for each candidate.

One can quantize the ratings, like making them 0, 0.5, 1. Reducing them to 0, 1 gives approval voting.

One can have some limit on what the ratings can add up to. If one quantizes the ratings, one can interpret the voting as having several votes that one can distribute however one likes -- either to one candidate or to several. That's cumulative voting.


Preference: put the candidates in order of one's preference in them. One can simplify it by having only a few top preferences.

There are various algorithms for counting up preference votes, some of them very complicated.

Borda: preference-to-rated translation. One's top preference gets n-1, the next one gets n-2, etc. where n is either the total number of candidates in the rate or the number of candidates that one gave preferences for.

Instant runoff voting: count the votes, and if a candidate gets a majority, then that one is the winner. Otherwise, remove the lowest-scoring candidate from the race and recount. Do as often as necessary before a candidate becomes a majority. A simplified version is instant top-two: first and second preferences only.

Condorcet methods: virtual round robin. Interpret the preference orders as each candidate vs. each other candidate, and count up how many such pairwise wins. If any candidate wins all such contests, then that one is the winner. Otherwise, do some rather complicated algorithm like Schulze beatpath or Tideman ranked pairs, or else Borda or IRV.
 
 Voting system has lots of details. It assesses several systems under several criteria. An important one for many of us is the  Independence of clones criterion. Will similar candidates help each other? That's teaming. Will they hurt each other? That's spoiling. Will they affect other candidates? That's crowding.

Let's see how common methods fare.
  • First past the post? Spoiling
  • Top-two runoff? Spoiling
  • Instant (sequential) runoff? Good
  • Schulze beatpath? Good
  • Tideman ranked pairs? Good
  • Borda? Teaming
  • Approval, rated? Good
Rated voting = range voting

Then there's the problem of counting up the votes. How does it scale with the number N of candidates?
  • FPTP, approval, rated, top-two, IRV, Borda? O(N)
  • Schulze? O(N^3)
  • Tideman? O(N^4)
The Kemeny-Young method requires O(N!) -- though for a large number of candidates, one could use simulated annealing or some other such optimization algorithm instead of the source of the N! factor, exhaustive search. But most other methods won't load down present-day CPU's very much for plausible numbers of candidates.

Now how big a memory space one will need for intermediate sums.
  • FPTP, approval, rated, top-two, Borda? O(N)
  • Schulze, Tideman? O(N^2) -- the "Condorcet matrix" of preferences turned into a round-robin contest
  • IRV? O(N!)
  • IRV with P preferences? O(N*(N-1)*...*(N-P+1))

So with IRV, one would have to redo the entire count for each new batch of ballots.
 
Looks here like Chris Christie is toast. Rick Perry is wasting his time, and so is Rubio. And Palin is still politic's clown princess.

She has been quoted as saying none of the Republican candidates is fit to be president and neither is she. Finally, she says something I can agree with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom