Meta-Tool

[Michael Allan]

I agree with Friedrich's concern.  Autocasting won't necessarily work
between all voting engines, especially in both directions.  And we
don't ever want to force a vote translation to the point where it
distorts the results.  So I wrote up these examples in the wiki:
http://t.zelea.com/wiki/User:ThomasvonderElbe_GmxDe/Vote_mirroring#Vote_translation

These are translations that an autocast developer might have to code.
I'm trying to find an example of a well-intentioned translation that
could backfire, and produce pathological results.

Adhocracy to Votorola
---------------------

An Adhocracy engine (A) is deployed locally, and someone raises a
motion related to a municipal bylaw.  It has three voters, one of whom
is a delegate (H):

  (you need a fixed width font to see these diagrams)


  engine: A (Adhocracy)
  poll:   A-motion/EN4J8, http://test.adhocracy.cc/motion/EN4J8
  method: single transitive

       (F)
        |
        |
        |
   (G) (H)
    |  /
    | /
    |/
   (T)

  turnout: 3
  result:  T=3


A Votorola engine (B) is also deployed locally.  It already has a
running poll related to the same section of the municipal code.  It's
been running for a while longer, so it has a few more voters:


  engine: B (Votorola)
  poll:   B-P/grfin, http://t.zelea.com/wiki/P/grfin
  method: single transitive

   (J)         (P)
    |           |
    |           |
    |           |
   (K) (L)     (Q) (R)
    |  /        |  /
    | /         | /
    |/          |/
   (U)         (V)

  turnout: 6
  result:  K=1, U=3, Q=1, V=3


The poll identification service maps the polls A-motion/EN4J8 =
B-P/grfin.  B's autocaster pull-mirrors the votes from A.  So now B
looks like this:


  engine: B
  poll:   B-P/grfin, http://t.zelea.com/wiki/P/grfin
  method: Votorola, single transitive

       (F)     (J)         (P)
        |       |           |
        |       |           |
        |       |           |
   (G) (H)     (K) (L)     (Q) (R)
    |  /        |  /        |  /
    | /         | /         | /
    |/          |/          |/
   (T)         (U)         (V)

  turnout: 9
  result:  T=3, H=1, K=1, U=3, Q=1, V=3


What's weird or pathological here?  Mapping an Adhocracy "motion" to
an entire Votorola "poll" allows only a single end-position (tree T)
to the A voters.  That's a little weird, because the B voters might
have any number of alternative end-positions (U,V,..) to choose from.
To mirror more than one motion per poll, we'd need to give Ahocracy
the concept of exclusive (alternative) motions.  But even without
that, there's nothing pathological here.

Can anyone set up a more problematic example?


Rated to Single-Recursive Vote
------------------------------

Here's a mayoral poll on a rated voting engine (C), with two primary
candidates (T,S).  There's no transitive delegation on this engine:


  engine: C (any rated voting engine)
  poll:   C-Mayor-Toronto
  method: IRV, rated

   (G)-->(S,T)

   (H)-->(T,S)

  turnout: 2
  result:  S=1, T=1


Here's a poll for the same issue (mayor's office) on the Votorola
engine:


  engine: B (Votorola)
  poll:   B-P/m, http://t.zelea.com/wiki/P/m
  method: single transitive

   (J)
    |
    |
    |
   (K) (L)
    |  /
    | /
    |/
   (U)

  turnout: 3
  result:  K=1, U=3


Poll identities are mapped C-Mayor-Toronto = B-P/m.  The autocaster
pull-mirrors the votes from C to B.  The ballot translation ignores
all but the top-ranked candidate:

               (J)
                |
                |
                |
   (G)   (H)   (K) (L)
    |     |     |  /
    |     |     | /
    |     |     |/
   (S)   (T)   (U)

  turnout: 5
  result:  S=1, T=1, K=1, U=3


This seems benign.  Can anyone set up a pathological case?

-- 
Michael Allan

Toronto, +1 647-436-4521
http://zelea.com/