Tideman alternative method

Last updated September 07, 2024

The Tideman Alternative method, also called Alternative-Smith voting, is a voting rule developed by Nicolaus Tideman which selects a single winner using ranked ballots. This method is Smith-efficient, making it a kind of Condorcet method, and uses the alternative vote (RCV) to resolve any cyclic ties.

Procedure

Tideman's Alternative Smith with three in the Smith set Tideman-Alternative-Smith.png — Tideman's Alternative Smith with three in the Smith set

The procedure for Tideman's rule is as follows:

Eliminate all candidates who are not in the top cycle (most often defined as the Smith set).
If there is more than one candidate remaining, eliminate the candidate ranked first by the fewest voters.
Repeat the procedure until there is a Condorcet winner, at which point the Condorcet winner is elected.

The procedure can also be applied using tournament sets other than the Smith set, e.g. the Landau set, Copeland set, bipartisan set, or the split-cycle set.

Features

Strategy-resistance

Alternative Smith strongly resists both strategic nomination and strategic voting by political parties or coalitions (although like every system, it can still be manipulated in some situations). The Smith and runoff components of the system each cover the other's weaknesses:

Smith-efficient methods are difficult for any coalition to manipulate, because no majority-strength coalition will have an incentive to remove a Condorcet winner: if most voters prefer A to B, A can already defeat B.
- This reasoning does not apply to situations with a Condorcet cycle, however.
- While Condorcet cycles are rare in practice with honest voters, burial (ranking a strong rival last, below weak opponents) can often be used to manufacture a false cycle.
Instant runoff voting is resistant to burial, because it is only based on each voter's top preference in any given round. This means that burial strategies effective against the Smith-elimination step are not effective against the instant runoff step.
- On the other hand, instant-runoff voting is highly vulnerable to a lesser evil (decapitation) strategy: defeating a greater evil requires voters to rank a strong candidate first, rather than support their sincere favorite.
- However, if such a candidate exists (with majority support), they will usually be a Condorcet winner, and elected in the first round.

The combination of these two methods creates a highly strategy-resistant system.

Spoiler effects

Alternative Smith fails independence of irrelevant alternatives, meaning it can sometimes be affected by spoiler candidates. However, the method adheres to a weaker property that eliminates most spoilers, sometimes called independence of Smith-dominated alternatives (ISDA). This method states that if one candidate (X) wins an election, and a new alternative (Y) is added, X will still win the election as long as Y is not in the highest-ranked cycle.

Comparison table

The following table compares Alternative Smith with other single-winner election methods:

Comparison of single-winner voting systems
Criterion Method	Majority	Majority loser	Mutual majority	Condorcet winner ^{[Tn 1]}	Condorcet loser	Smith ^{[Tn 1]}	Smith-IIA ^{[Tn 1]}	IIA/LIIA ^{[Tn 1]}	Cloneproof	Monotone	Participation	Later-no-harm ^{[Tn 1]}	Later-no-help ^{[Tn 1]}	No favorite betrayal ^{[Tn 1]}	Ballot type
Anti-plurality	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Single mark
Approval	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	No	Yes^{[Tn 2]}	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Approvals
Baldwin	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	Ranking
Black	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	Ranking
Borda	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	Ranking
Bucklin	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	Ranking
Coombs	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	Yes	Ranking
Copeland	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	Ranking
Dodgson	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	Ranking
Highest median	Yes	Yes^{[Tn 3]}	No^{[Tn 4]}	No	No	No	No	Yes^{[Tn 2]}	Yes	Yes	No^{[Tn 5]}	No	Yes	Yes	Scores
Instant-runoff	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	Ranking
Kemeny–Young	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	LIIA Only	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	Ranking
Minimax	Yes	No	No	Yes^{[Tn 6]}	No	No	No	No	No	Yes	No	No^{[Tn 6]}	No	No	Ranking
Nanson	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	Ranking
Plurality	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Single mark
Random ballot ^{[Tn 7]}	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Single mark
Ranked pairs	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	LIIA Only	Yes	Yes	No^{[Tn 5]}	No	No	No	Ranking
Runoff	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	Single mark
Schulze	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No^{[Tn 5]}	No	No	No	Ranking
Score	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	Yes^{[Tn 2]}	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Scores
Sortition ^{[Tn 8]}	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	None
STAR	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	Scores
Tideman alternative	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	Ranking
Table Notes	1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Condorcet's criterion is incompatible with the consistency, participation, later-no-harm, later-no-help, and sincere favorite criteria. 1 2 3 Approval voting, score voting, and majority judgment satisfy IIA if it is assumed that voters rate candidates independently using their own absolute scale. For this to hold, in some elections, some voters must use less than their full voting power despite having meaningful preferences among viable candidates. ↑ Majority Judgment may elect a candidate uniquely least-preferred by over half of voters, but it never elects the candidate uniquely bottom-rated by over half of voters. ↑ Majority Judgment fails the mutual majority criterion, but satisfies the criterion if the majority ranks the mutually favored set above a given absolute grade and all others below that grade. 1 2 3 In Highest median, Ranked Pairs, and Schulze voting, there is always a regret-free, semi-honest ballot for any voter, holding all other ballots constant and assuming they know enough about how others will vote. Under such circumstances, there is always at least one way for a voter to participate without grading any less-preferred candidate above any more-preferred one. 1 2 A variant of Minimax that counts only pairwise opposition, not opposition minus support, fails the Condorcet criterion and meets later-no-harm. ↑ A randomly chosen ballot determines winner. This and closely related methods are of mathematical interest and included here to demonstrate that even unreasonable methods can pass voting method criteria. ↑ Where a winner is randomly chosen from the candidates, sortition is included to demonstrate that even non-voting methods can pass some criteria.

Related Research Articles

The two-round system, also called ballotage, top-two runoff, or two-round plurality, is a single winner voting method. It is sometimes called plurality-runoff, although this term can also be used for other, closely-related systems such as ranked-choice voting or the exhaustive ballot. It falls under the class of plurality-based voting rules, together with instant-runoff and first-past-the-post (FPP). In a two-round system, both rounds are held under choose-one voting, where the voter marks a single favorite candidate. The two candidates with the most votes in the first round proceed to a second round, where all other candidates are excluded.

In social choice theory, Condorcet's voting paradox is a fundamental discovery by the Marquis de Condorcet that majority rule is inherently self-contradictory. The result states that it is logically impossible for any voting system to guarantee the winner has a majority of the vote, because it is possible no such winner exists: in some situations, a majority of voters will prefer A to B, B to C, and also C to A, even if every voter's individual preferences are rational and avoid self-contradiction. Examples of Condorcet's paradox are called Condorcet cycles or cyclic ties.

In social choice theory and politics, the spoiler effect refers to a situation where a large group of like-minded voters split their votes among multiple candidates, which can affect the result of an election by allowing a candidate with a smaller base of support to win with a plurality. If a major candidate is perceived to have lost an election because a more minor candidate pulled votes away from them, the minor candidate is called a spolier candidate and the major candidate is said to have been spoiled. This phenomenon is also called vote splitting.

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 pairwise champion or beats-all winner, is formally called the Condorcet winner. The head-to-head elections need not be done separately; a voter's choice within any given pair can be determined from the ranking.

Coombs' method is a ranked voting system. Like instant-runoff (IRV-RCV), Coombs' method is a sequential-loser method, where the last-place finisher according to one method is eliminated in each round. However, unlike in instant-runoff, each round has electors voting against their least-favorite candidate; the candidate ranked last by the most voters is eliminated.

The Copeland or Llull method is a ranked-choice voting system based on counting each candidate's pairwise wins and losses.

Bucklin voting is a class of voting methods that can be used for single-member and multi-member districts. As in highest median rules like the majority judgment, the Bucklin winner will be one of the candidates with the highest median ranking or rating. It is named after its original promoter, the Georgist politician James W. Bucklin of Grand Junction, Colorado, and is also known as the Grand Junction system.

Ranked Pairs (RP) is a tournament-style system of ranked voting first proposed by Nicolaus Tideman in 1987.

In an election, a candidate is called a majority winner or majority-preferred candidate if more than half of all voters would support them in a one-on-one race against any one of their opponents. Voting systems where a majority winner will always win are said to satisfy the majority-rule principle, because they extend the principle of majority rule to elections with multiple candidates.

The participation criterion, sometimes called votermonotonicity, 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 not cause Alice to lose the election to Bob.

The Borda count electoral system can be combined with an instant-runoff procedure to create hybrid election methods that are called Nanson method and Baldwin method. Both methods are designed to satisfy the Condorcet criterion, and allow for incomplete ballots and equal rankings.

In single-winner voting system theory, the Condorcet loser criterion (CLC) is a measure for differentiating voting systems. It implies the majority loser criterion but does not imply the Condorcet winner criterion.

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, designed to overcome some of that system's perceived shortcomings. It does this by incorporating some of the features of Condorcet's method, a voting system designed for single-winner elections, into STV. As in other forms of STV, in a CPO-STV election more than one candidate is elected and voters must rank candidates in order of preference. As of February 2021, it has not been used for a public election.

Later-no-harm is a property of some 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 higher-ranked candidate to lose.

In social choice theory, the independence of (irrelevant) clones criterion says that adding a clone, i.e. a new candidate very similar to an already-existing candidate, should not spoil the results. It can be considered a very weak form of the independence of irrelevant alternatives (IIA) criterion.

Instant-runoff voting (IRV), also known as ranked-choice voting (RCV), preferential voting (PV), or the alternative vote (AV), is a multi-round elimination method where the loser of each round is determined by the first-past-the-post method. In academic contexts, the term instant-runoff voting is generally preferred as it does not run the risk of conflating the method with methods of ranked voting in general.

The 2009 Burlington mayoral election was the second mayoral election since the city's 2005 change to instant-runoff voting (IRV), after the 2006 mayoral election. In the 2009 election, incumbent Burlington mayor won reelection as a member of the Vermont Progressive Party, defeating Kurt Wright in the final round with 48% of the vote.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ranked voting</span> Voting systems that use ranked ballots

Ranked voting is any voting system that uses voters' orderings (rankings) of candidates to choose a single winner or multiple winners. More formally, a ranked rule is one that depends only on which of two candidates is preferred by a voter, and as such does not incorporate any information about intensity of preferences. Ranked voting systems vary dramatically in how preferences are tabulated and counted, which gives them very different properties.

A major branch of social choice theory is devoted to the comparison of electoral systems, otherwise known as social choice functions. Viewed from the perspective of political science, electoral systems are rules for conducting elections and determining winners from the ballots cast. From the perspective of economics, mathematics, and philosophy, a social choice function is a mathematical function that determines how a society should make choices, given a collection of individual preferences.

In social choice, a center squeeze is a kind of spoiler effect common to plurality-based voting rules like the two-round system, plurality-with-primaries, and ranked-choice voting (RCV). In a center squeeze, a majority-preferred and socially-optimal candidate is eliminated in favor of a more extreme alternative. Extreme or polarizing candidates who focus on appealing to a small political base can thus "squeeze" broadly-popular candidates who are trapped between them, starving them of the first preferences they need to survive early rounds.

References

Green-Armytage, James. Four Condorcet-Hare Hybrid Methods for Single-Winner Elections.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[condorcet-iia-incompatibility-1] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Condorcet's criterion is incompatible with the consistency, participation, later-no-harm, later-no-help, and sincere favorite criteria.

[IIA_rating_methods-2] 1 2 3 Approval voting, score voting, and majority judgment satisfy IIA if it is assumed that voters rate candidates independently using their own absolute scale. For this to hold, in some elections, some voters must use less than their full voting power despite having meaningful preferences among viable candidates.

[3] Majority Judgment may elect a candidate uniquely least-preferred by over half of voters, but it never elects the candidate uniquely bottom-rated by over half of voters.

[mjmmc-4] Majority Judgment fails the mutual majority criterion, but satisfies the criterion if the majority ranks the mutually favored set above a given absolute grade and all others below that grade.

[semipc-5] 1 2 3 In Highest median, Ranked Pairs, and Schulze voting, there is always a regret-free, semi-honest ballot for any voter, holding all other ballots constant and assuming they know enough about how others will vote. Under such circumstances, there is always at least one way for a voter to participate without grading any less-preferred candidate above any more-preferred one.

[MinimaxVarient-6] 1 2 A variant of Minimax that counts only pairwise opposition, not opposition minus support, fails the Condorcet criterion and meets later-no-harm.

[7] A randomly chosen ballot determines winner. This and closely related methods are of mathematical interest and included here to demonstrate that even unreasonable methods can pass voting method criteria.

[8] Where a winner is randomly chosen from the candidates, sortition is included to demonstrate that even non-voting methods can pass some criteria.

[Tn 1]

[Tn 2]

[Tn 3]

[Tn 4]

[Tn 5]

[Tn 6]

[Tn 7]

[Tn 8]