Putting new information into papers

I have been talking with Professor Steven Brams a fair bit about how to move forward with multi-winner score systems. He suggest that we write and publish some papers and I tend to agree that this is the next step. The likely journals would be Social Choice and Welfare or Public Choice. Anybody, can submit papers to these journals.

The results from the wolf committee show that the top picks should likely be:

There are many others which deserve a write-up but these were the ones we ended up with. @Sara_Wolf and the Equal Vote Coalition are backing these so it seems that this is a good place to start. There is a list of others which are not quite as well developed or scrutinized which we could always do if the process with these is successful.

My thought would be that (other than a description) the papers would largely contain proof of important criteria they pass or fail. Each systems should also be put in the relevant context of the theory it arose out of.

SSS is almost entirely new. I would give the context of Vote unitarity which motivated it and say it is an extension of the largest remainder party list case.

SMV has a lot of background information on Monroe’s method. @parker_friedland is the inventor and should be lead author since he has a very good understanding of the related theory. It might also be worth introducing Allocated Score in the same paper to contrast the different selections.

SDV is actually a relatively small but powerful enhancement to Reweighted Range Voting so it should be put in that context referencing RRV. Scale invariance should also be discussed along with the Kotze-Pereira transformation since that is a major consequence of the enhancement. @Toby_Pereira do you know if there are already papers on your KP transform to reference? On the electowiki page I sort of derive SDV from SPAV and this is useful since SPAV has such a well known history.

Once these 3 papers are done we could likely write a compare and contrast paper for the three systems. We should likely also include STV as that is sort of the political standard system in the world today. It would also likely be useful to include the simulation results to help visualize.

Does this seem like a reasonable plan? I know everybody is busy and I am as well. I would not expect that this be done quickly but that it moves along gradually. Is anybody interested in contributing?

1 Like

I mentioned it in my PAMSAC paper that I put on arXiv, but it wasn’t a rigorous discussion. I could potentially write a paper on it specifically if you think it would be helpful.

The discussion would need to be in DSV anyway so we can put it in that paper.

Sounds like a great plan.

One point of clarification. The Equal Vote Coalition has not formally reviewed these systems yet, as the committee’s work is ongoing, and so we aren’t officially backing any specific options yet. That said, these three are the front runners in the 0-5 Star Proportional Research Committee review so far and preliminary conclusions suggest that they are all better options than STV.

One goal of the research committee is to bring great minds together to try and facilitate progress in this field, while actually building consensus among the leading voices on the topic. I’m very impressed with the level of work and the expertise that’s gone into this project to date, and look forward to taking the next steps into helping draft some groundbreaking articles which can then be peer reviewed, by the electoral science community, and then by academia.

2 Likes