Contents

Description of CHPV and GV

Introduction
Analogy
Weightings
Voting
Counting
Outcomes
Party-List
Summary

Evaluations of CHPV and GV

Ranked Ballot

Introduction (RB)
General Criteria
Majority Criteria
Clones & Teaming
Teaming Thresholds
Summary (RB)

Party-List

Introduction (PL)
Diagrams & Maps
CHPV Maps
Optimality
Party Cloning
Proportionality
Summary (PL)

Comparisons of CHPV with other voting systems

Single-Winner

Introduction (SW)
Plurality (FPTP)
Borda Count
Geometric Voting
Positional Voting
Condorcet Methods
AV (IRV)
Plur. Rule Methods
Summary (SW)

Multiple-Winner

Introduction (MW)
STV
Party-List
PL ~ Hare
PL ~ Droop
~ Maps Opt PC Pro
PL ~ D'Hondt
~ Maps Opt PC Pro
PL ~ Sainte-Laguë
~ Maps Opt PC Pro
Mixed Member Sys
Summary (MW)

Conclusions

Ranked Ballot CHPV
Party-List CHPV

General

Table of Contents

Map Construction

Table of Contents

Mathematical Proofs

Table of Contents
Notation & Formats

Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict

Valid CSS

Home About Description Evaluations(RB) Evaluations(PL) Comparisons(SW) Comparisons(MW) Conclusions General Maps Proofs
Home About Description Evaluations(RB) Evaluations(PL) Comparisons(SW) Comparisons(MW) Conclusions General Maps Proofs
Home > Evaluations > Teaming Thresholds > Page 2 of 6
Last Revision: New on 25 Aug 2012

Evaluations: Teaming Thresholds 2

GV Teaming Thresholds for Clone Set versus One Candidate

M = 1 map

In this first and simplest specific scenario, two candidates A and B are initially tied before clone set A nominates its K clones. As B is the only non-clone, M = 1. By comparing the tallies for A1 and B and then AK and B, the above two teaming threshold equations are determined.

To promote A1 through teaming, a forward slate should be issued to maximise pF. To thwart such an attempt, qR should be maximised. To put it the other way round, pR and qF should both be minimised. Where qF is larger than pR/r, A1 wins through teaming but, where qF is smaller than pR/r, B beats A1 through vote splitting. A tie is maintained when the two expressions are equal.

For a challenge by AK instead, pF and qR should now be minimised. Note that for B to win, B must simultaneously beat both A1 and AK.

Each teaming threshold is equivalent to a straight line on the cloning map opposite; where M = 1. Example lines have been plotted for values of r ranging from 0 to 1 in steps of 1/4.

For any r, there are two areas where A wins through teaming and an intervening one where A loses to B through vote splitting. A1 wins in the upper-left area and AK in the lower-right one. For CHPV (r = 1/2) as an example, its two teaming areas are highlighted here in white and the intervening vote splitting area in grey.

GV Teaming Thresholds for Clone Set versus Two Candidates

M = 2 map

In this second specific scenario, three candidates A, B and C are initially all tied before clone set A nominates its K clones. As B and C are the only non-clones, M = 2. By comparing the tallies for A1 and B (or C) and then AK and B (or C), the above two teaming threshold equations are determined.

Example threshold lines are again drawn on the (M = 2) cloning map opposite for the same values of r as before. Also, for CHPV (r = 1/2) as an example, its upper-left white area (where A1 wins), its lower-right white area (where AK wins) and the intervening grey area (where B and C remain tied but beat both A1 and AK) are again shown.

For all points along a teaming threshold (boundary line between a white and grey area), a critical tie between the relevant leading A clone and all the M non-clone candidates is retained.










Proceed to next page > Evaluations: Teaming Thresholds 3

Return to previous page > Evaluations: Teaming Thresholds 1