Loomio
Tue 1 Nov 2016

Prioritization: A more tangible use case example

J
Joe Public Seen by 389

Last week I attempted to create a more tangible demo of how my "muxive" solution is better than other solutions being used or proposed today. The example I used was the 2016 US Presidential election. I created some close to realistic voting results based on the latest polls at the time and compared three results tallying solutions: 1) electoral college (EC); 2) rank-choice voting (RCV); 3) muxive (MUX.)

I did the simulation and comparison in a Google spreadsheet (and it is available for review), but allow me to just highlight the input and results data.

Input data:

  • Clinton 47%
  • Trump 41%
  • Johnson 9%
  • Stein 3%

Both rcv and muxive require rank ordering (prioritizing) the candidates.

There are 24 possible orderings of these four candidates. Again, I simulated very probable outcomes that summed to 100% and also matched the above input data - from the #1 positioning POV. (Again, all this can be seen in the spreadsheet.)

Results:

I did NOT attempt to detail an EC result. Let's just assume with these numbers Hillary wins.

RCV also made Hillary the winner.

But MUX made Gary Johnson the winner. These were the numbers:

  • Clinton 26.04%
  • Trump 24.53%
  • Johnson 26.29%
  • Stein 23.13%

The big takeaway here is that muxing does NOT use the majority wins principle. Instead it's the relative positioning of all possibilities that becomes most important. For me this translates into EVERY vote counts far more! It makes a compelling reason for engagement and making your voice count.

I had no idea this would be the result because prior to this I only focused on lists of top things and NOT a single top winner of a decision type application. But it can be used for both.

Just imagine this group wants to come up with some new brand name to move forward with. Everyone can think about names, pitch ideas and begin to rank order each that comes along. The one that will rise to the top is not necessarily the one on the top of a majority of participants list. It can be but it can sometimes be one that is low down but more consistently in a higher position.

This is how muxing is very different. IMHO - far more a GREAT compromise solution.

Some people will hate it because they lose power, but my guess is a large majority of all people around the world will appreciate this alternative solution.

Hope this tangible example better explains the solution I have been pushing in this group. It's the same algorithm solution used in AiD and muxive.

J

Joe Tue 1 Nov 2016

If you have read the above and you are one of those people who are saying impossible or there must be a mistake in his math - allow me to give a nice concise explanation.

"This solution counts unpopularity equal with popularity."

And doesn't it make intuitive sense that two candidates so unpopular should not get the position?

The problem with the solution today is it only counts one side of the whole story - just popularity. It's the sneaky way the two-party system keeps the power. One more trick of capitalism.

NK

Nikhil Kulkarni Fri 11 Nov 2016

With Trump becoming president and Protests going on in some places, I feel democracy does injustice to a litte less than 50% of people. So, I like the idea of voters voting with more DATA (i.e instead of just a choice, we can vote with a priority list). A compromise might upset lesser people.