From fb259e64f92f2236a93dfecb80edb02cca59bef2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: mduchin Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2024 15:39:12 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] Update paper.md --- paper/paper.md | 55 +++++++++++++------------------------------------- 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-) diff --git a/paper/paper.md b/paper/paper.md index c134807..87b8155 100644 --- a/paper/paper.md +++ b/paper/paper.md @@ -67,14 +67,13 @@ the practice of democracy. On the software side, researchers have built a multitude of different packages for generating and analyzing elections.[^4] -Some of the packages do not create an end-to-end pipeline, like -[@boehmer2024guidenumericalexperimentselections], which generate profiles but does not conduct -elections, or [@votelib] which *only* conducts elections. -Others, like [@preflibtools] and [@prefvoting], provide support for generating profiles and conducting -single-winner elections but do not support multi-winner elections like STV. -Multi-winner packages like [@abcvoting] or [@apportionment] do not support ranked voting. -`VoteKit` is built to provide an end-to-end pipeline that supports ranked, scored, and approval profiles -as well as single and multi-winner elections and their analysis. +Most packages, to our knowledge, handle just one part of the research arc; for instance, +`PrefSampling` [@boehmer2024guidenumericalexperimentselections] generates profiles but does not conduct +elections, while `VoteLib` [@votelib] *only* conducts elections. +Others, like `PrefLibTools` [@preflibtools] and `PrefVoting` [@prefvoting], provide support for generating profiles and conducting single-winner elections. +Packages with multi-winner capability, like `abcvoting` [@abcvoting] or `Apportionment` [@apportionment], do not support ranked voting. +To illustrate the gap this leaves, note that single transferable voting (STV), a voting system actually used for political election in six countries, is curiously absent. `VoteKit` is built to provide an end-to-end pipeline that supports ranked, scored, and approval profiles +as well as single- and multi-winner elections, with an emphasis on practical applicability. ## Area of need: Generative models @@ -133,56 +132,30 @@ under study. Available voting rules include: - **Approval-based (set).** Approval voting, Bloc plurality. +This list does not include every method that has attracted theoretical investigation; rather, it is oriented to methods used or considered for political representation, such as the final-four system in Alaska or the sequential RCV in Utah local elections. See generally [@electoralhandbook; @STV; @Borda; @TopTwo; @SequentialRCV] for -references. +references. In addition, `VoteKit` is flexible enough to allow users to write custom voting rules. Reform advocates also need to describe voting mechanisms and their likely outcomes effectively to members of their communities. The end-to-end pipeline provided by `VoteKit` allows advocates to toggle different system settings and compare expected outcomes. For example, -in Figure \@ref(fig:WA_comparison), there are six proposed electoral systems for the Washington state legislature: - -0. 49 districts, each electing one Senator and two House -members, each by single-seat Instant-Runoff-Voting (IRV); -1. 16 districts, each electing three Senators and six House members; -2. 33 districts, -each electing one Senator and three House members; -3. 7 districts, each electing seven Senators -and subdivided into two House districts, each electing seven House members; -4. 150 districts, each -electing one legislator (unicameral); and -5. 30 districts, each electing five legislators (unicameral). - -Using `VoteKit` one can study the expected outcomes for minority representation under these six systems. +Figure \@ref(fig:WA_comparison) comes from a report on reform proposals for the chambers of the Washington state legislature, with Systems 0-3 as paired bicameral systems and Systems 4-5 as unicameral solutions. Using the codebase that formed the foundation of `VoteKit`, researchers compared the expected outcomes for minority representation under these six systems. ![A comparison of a variety of electoral systems and their affect on minority representation in a case study of the Washington state legislature [@washington_leg]. \label{fig:WA_comparison}](./figures/WA_poc_seats_chartsystem_compare_pared.png){width=100%} - ## Area of need: Resources for research Previous research works such as [@elkind2017multiwinner] have compared -properties of earlier generative models; `VoteKit` facilitates robust +properties of earlier generative models; `VoteKit` has functionality to fully +replicate this work and facilitates robust comparisons across a more comprehensive and up-to-date list of alternatives. It also offers new analytical tools that will support -research on elections. Some examples of more sophisticated functionality -are shown in Figure 2. At left is a *ballot graph*, +research on elections. Some examples are shown in Figure 2. At left is a *ballot graph*, where nodes are ballots weighted by their frequency in the profile; a recent research paper shows that ballot graphs can be metrized to realize classical statistical ranking distances, like Kendall tau and -the Spearman footrule [@duchin_tapp_24]. VoteKit also implements a class +the Spearman footrule [@duchin_tapp_24]. `VoteKit` also implements a class of election distances, as surveyed in [@distance-elex]. Choices for measuring the difference between two profiles on the same set of candidates include $L^p$ distance and Wasserstein (earth-mover)