Criteria listed on web page


There is a section on the web page which has a list of voting criteria

Should we not try to make a more exhaustive list? Off the top of my head those missing are:

  1. Pareto Criterion If every voter prefers alternative X over alternative Y, then the system prefers X over Y
  2. Partitionable Partition the voters into two subsets, such the Northern and Southern ones. Suppose that the same candidate X is elected by the North and by the South. Then X must be elected countrywide.
  3. Weak Petitioner Accountability All citizens have at least one representative to go to in the case of an issue.
  4. Strong Petitioner Accountability All citizens have a single specific representative to go to in the case of an issue.
  5. Balanced Representation All representatives represent the same number of citizens
  6. Sincere Voting Criteria Voters must not be encouraged to strategically vote
  7. No Vote Splitting Voters can give endorsement for more than one candidate

The wording on the last two could be better but I am sure you all know what I mean. Would also be good to have a pictorial structure showing how many of these criteria are sub cases of another more general criteria.

New website design feedback

Just put in some updates. I’ll need to update the index.



Warren’s site might be useful


Can, meaning “the ballot allows it without negating your ballot” or “such a move is never strategically unsound”? In other words, do IRV, Borda, and VoteFor2 satisfy this?


I am not sure. I would say that IRV does not split votes but it is bad for other reasons. I would like it defined in a way such that MMP has vote splitting. People often conflate having Full Proportional Representation and having no Vote Splitting. Clearly in MMP you cannot endorse two candidates/parties. Having Full Proportional Representation just mitigates some of the consequences of vote splitting.


How about simply “you can give an opinion on all candidates”?


I wonder if there is a way to be more mathematically rigorousness. We really just want to exclude plurality voting but I hesitate to say that. How about: If a clone of any candidate is introduced, then the voter has incentive to mark their ballot for the clone similarly to the original

This is very similar to “interdependence of clones”. Is one a subclass of the other?

While we are on the topic. The wikipedia page is terrible. Flat out like about approval.

Approval voting reduces the vote-splitting effect compared to plurality voting, but vote splitting can still occur because the two-level quantization means full preferences of voters are not collected.

FairVote seems to be spreading their misinformation in all corners.


At the very least we should say that (1) Score Voting decreases the “vote splitting” compared to Approval and (2) clarify an inconsistency:

Although instant runoff voting (IRV) uses ranked ballots, secondary preferences are considered in the same sequence as in multiple rounds of voting, so this method does not reduce the vote-splitting effect (compared to runoff voting).
When ranked ballots are used, a voter can vote for a minor party candidate as their first choice, and also indicate their order of preference for the remaining candidates, without regard for whether a candidate is in a major political party. For example, voters who support a very liberal candidate can select a somewhat liberal candidate as their second choice, thus minimising the chance that their vote will result in the election of a conservative candidate.


I have always thought of Vote Splitting as a binary thing. A ballot either splits votes or it does not. So I do not think that Score splits the vote less than Approval. I am surprised to find that such a common and simple concept has so many different definitions. We need to find a clear and precise definition.


Approval just plain does not suffer from vote splitting. In my last post the quotes around vote splitting were SCARE quotes. Score does decrease the problem of how someone may not want to give their full vote to a compromise candidate, which UnfairVote has taken to the level of “vote splitting”.


On Wikipedia, that’s called Consistency.

Is that possible? Gibbard’s theorem seems to imply otherwise…

I would say that it clearly does, given that there were 1500+ Wright>Montroll>Kiss voters that got neither Wright nor Montroll.


The wording is subtle. No system is without strategic possibilities but some systems actively encourage people to not vote honestly. This as well as the vote splitting question need to be defined rigorously. I understand what your say about IRV but that is not the sort of phenomena I think of when I say vote splitting. If somebody has a good definition I am happy to use it.


I dislike that word because Monotonicity, District Consistency, Determinism, and IIA could all lay claim to the label of “consistency”.