Supervisor: Anton Khirnov <>
Announced end of poll: 2024-12-23
Actual time poll closed:
Private poll (52 authorized voters)
Actual votes cast: 31
Number of winning choices:
This poll implements proportional representation. The combined-weights criterion is used to identify each voter's preferred set of choices.
Condorcet completion rule:    (What is this?)
Minimax
CIVS Ranked Pairs
Schulze/Beatpath
MAM
Condorcet-IRV
Bottom-2 Runoff
Schulze proportional ranking
Proportional

Poll description

Five people from the list below will become the members of the Community Committee (CC). Assign weights to each person according to how much you want them to be in the committee (higher weight = higher preference). The system will assume you want to maximize the sum of weights of selected candidates.

If you want to keep things simple and just rank people individually, give them weights that are successive powers of two. I.e. your least favored candidate gets 1, then 2, 4, 8, 16, and the most favored gets 32. If you do that, feel free to ignore the text below.

A more complex example
If you give Jerry a weight of 10 and give Tom a weight of 9, that means you prefer Jerry over Tom, because 10 > 9.
If you give Spike a weight of 20, that would mean you not only prefer Spike over Tom OR Jerry, but also over Tom AND Jerry, because 20 > 10 + 9.
OTOH if you give Spike a weight of 18, that would mean you prefer Spike over Tom OR Jerry, but you prefer Tom AND Jerry over Spike, because:
9 < 10 < 18 < 9 + 10
Tom < Jerry < Spike < Tom and Jerry

Relevant ML thread.

Choices (in individual preference order)

  1. compn
  2. Vittorio Giovara
  3. Rémi Denis-Courmont
  4. Anton Khirnov
  5. Jean-Baptiste Kempf
  6. James Almer
  7. Marth64

Winning set of choices

The apparent winner of this poll was the set of choices ( 3,4,5,6,7 ):

  1. Rémi Denis-Courmont
  2. Anton Khirnov
  3. Jean-Baptiste Kempf
  4. James Almer
  5. Marth64

Preference matrix

There are 21 possible sets of 5 choices that can be formed by selecting from the 7 choices. Of these, 7 sets were considered thoroughly, comparing against the 15 nearby (similar) sets that differ in just one choice.

This is the voting preference matrix, reporting maximal valid proportional preferences. Fractional digits indicate nonproportional preferences, which help break ties in proportional preference.

  1234567
1. (3,4,5,6,7)   -14.2 0.19 0.18 16.18 16.19 16.21
2. (2,3,4,5,6)   0.05 -0.14 0.15 0.15 0.17 7.19
3. (1,3,4,5,6)   0.07 0.12 -0.13 0.18 16.19 21.21
4. (1,2,4,5,6)   0.08 0.12 0.04 -0.15 17.19 19.2
5. (1,2,3,5,6)   0.09 0.14 0.04 0.05 -0.11 16.16
6. (1,2,3,4,6)   0.06 0.1 0.05 0.03 0.08 -14.14
7. (1,2,3,4,5)   0.07 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.09 -

Pairwise comparison

You can compare any two sets of choices. Just enter the numbers of the choices (from 1 to 7) in each set, with the numbers of one set's choices in the left column and the numbers of the other's in the right column.

Set 1Set 2

Nonproportional poll

The following gives the details of how the poll would have resulted if run on single choices, without proportional representation. This hypothetical poll defines the “individual preference order” used above.

Ranking of the choices

Winning choices are shown in bold.

Module for algorithm minimax not valid