Schulze STV
   HOME

TheInfoList



OR:

Schulze STV is a proposed multi-winner
ranked voting Ranked voting is any voting system that uses voters' Ordinal utility, rankings of candidates to choose a single winner or multiple winners. More formally, a ranked vote system depends only on voters' total order, order of preference of the cand ...
system designed to achieve
proportional representation Proportional representation (PR) refers to any electoral system under which subgroups of an electorate are reflected proportionately in the elected body. The concept applies mainly to political divisions (Political party, political parties) amon ...
. It was invented by Markus Schulze, who developed the
Schulze method Articles with example pseudocode Debian Electoral systems Monotonic Condorcet methods Single-winner electoral systems The Schulze method (), also known as the beatpath method, is a single winner ranked-choice voting rule developed by Markus ...
for resolving ties using a
Condorcet method A Condorcet method (; ) is an election method that elects the candidate who wins a majority of the vote in every head-to-head election against each of the other candidates, whenever there is such a candidate. A candidate with this property, the ...
. Schulze STV is similar to
CPO-STV CPO-STV, or the Comparison of Pairs of Outcomes by the Single Transferable Vote, is a ranked voting system designed to achieve proportional representation. It is a more sophisticated variant of the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system, designe ...
in that it compares possible winning candidate pairs and selects the Condorcet winner. It is named in analogy to the
single transferable vote The single transferable vote (STV) or proportional-ranked choice voting (P-RCV) is a multi-winner electoral system in which each voter casts a single vote in the form of a ranked ballot. Voters have the option to rank candidates, and their vot ...
(STV), but only shares its aim of proportional representation, and is otherwise based on unrelated principles. The system is based on Schulze's investigations into vote management and free riding. When a voter prefers a popular candidate, there is an advantage to first choosing a candidate who is unlikely to win ("Woodall free riding") or omitting his preferred candidate from his rankings ("Hylland free riding"). Schulze STV is designed to be as resistant to free riding as possible, without giving up the Droop proportionality criterion.


Example

Each voter ranks candidates in their order of preference. In a hypothetical election, three candidates vie for two seats; Andrea and Carter represent the Yellow Party, and Brad represents the Purple Party. Andrea is a popular candidate, and has supporters who are not Yellow Party supporters. It is assumed that the Yellow Party can influence their own supporters, but not Andrea's. There are 90 voters, and their preferences are In the STV system, the initial tallies are: *Andrea (Y): 50 *Carter (Y): 13 *Brad (P): 27 The quota is determined according to () / (+1) = 90 / (2 + 1) = 30. Andrea is declared elected and her surplus, - = 50 - 30 = 20 , is distributed with
\mbox \left( \times \mbox \right).
*Carter (Y): 13 + \mbox \left( \frac \times 20 \right) = 13 + 15 = 28 *Brad (P): 27 + \mbox \left( \frac \times 20 \right) = 27 + 5 = 32 Brad is also elected. The Schulze STV system has three possible outcomes (sets of winners) in the election: Andrea and Carter, Andrea and Brad, and Carter and Brad. In this system, any candidate with more than the
Droop quota In the study of Electoral system, electoral systems, the Droop quota (sometimes called the Eduard Hagenbach-Bischoff, Hagenbach-Bischoff, Britton, or Newland-Britton quota) is the Infimum, minimum number of votes a party or candidate needs to rece ...
of first choices will be elected. Andrea is certain to be elected, with two possible outcomes: Andrea and Carter, and Andrea and Brad.


Resistance to vote management

In vote management, a party instructs its voters not to rank a popular party candidate first. If the Yellow Party's leaders instruct their supporters to choose Carter first (followed by Andrea), the balloting changes. Unlike STV, however, Schulze STV resists vote management.


Potential for tactical voting

Proportional representation systems are much less susceptible to tactical voting than single-winner systems such as the
first past the post First-past-the-post (FPTP)—also called choose-one, first-preference plurality (FPP), or simply plurality—is a single-winner voting rule. Voters mark one candidate as their favorite, or First-preference votes, first-preference, and the cand ...
system and
instant-runoff voting Instant-runoff voting (IRV; ranked-choice voting (RCV), preferential voting, alternative vote) is a single-winner ranked voting election system where Sequential loser method, one or more eliminations are used to simulate Runoff (election), ...
(IRV), if the number of seats to be filled is sufficiently large. Schulze STV aims to have additional resistance to forms of tactical voting which are specific to single transferable voting methods, in particular a phenomenon that Schulze calls Hylland Free Riding. STV methods which make use of Meek's or Warren's method are resistant to what Schulze calls Woodall Free Riding, but are still vulnerable to Hylland Free Riding. As Schulze STV reduces to the Schulze method in single winner elections, it fails the
participation criterion The participation criterion is a voting system criterion that says candidates should never lose an election as a result of receiving too many votes in support. More formally, it says that adding more voters who prefer ''Alice'' to ''Bob'' should ...
, the
later-no-harm criterion Later-no-harm is a property of some Ranked voting, ranked-choice voting systems, first described by Douglas Woodall. In later-no-harm systems, increasing the rating or rank of a candidate ranked below the winner of an election cannot cause a high ...
and the later-no-help criterion, whereas traditional forms of STV (that reduce to IRV in single winner elections) fulfill later-no-help and later-no-harm.


Complexity

Schulze STV is no more complicated for the voter than other forms of STV; the ballot is the same, and candidates are ranked in order of preference. In calculating an election result, however, Schulze STV is significantly more complex than STV. In most applications, computer calculation would be required. The algorithm implementing Schulze STV requires exponentially many steps in the number of seats to be filled (roughly on the order of m^ steps when ''k'' out of ''m'' candidates are to be selected), making the computation difficult if this number is not very small. In particular, the rule does not have polynomial runtime. Compared to CPO-STV, implementing Schulze STV might be somewhat faster, since it only compares outcomes differing by one candidate; CPO-STV compares all possible pairs.


References


External links


The Schulze Method of Voting
(section 9) by Markus Schulze
Python implementation
{{voting systems Single transferable vote