Talk:Decoy list
Add topicLatest comment: 3 months ago by GhostInTheMachine in topic Table
Chart
[edit]@Rankedchoicevoter: maybe make it so that only Party A uses a decoy list Braganza (talk) 14:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- oh its already that way i see Braganza (talk) 14:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Rankedchoicevoter: now i think where the problem is, you underestimated the decoy list effect
- since AA & D have more seats then they should have, only 43 seats remain to be distributed between A, B & C (i think it should be 19-18-6) Braganza (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- I don't quite understand where you get those numbers from. 41 seats left I could see. But it's still only 30 additional seats because 11 are for blue from SMDs. So the result should be the same as parallel, or? Can it be worse than parallel? Rankedchoicevoter (talk) 07:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- It depends If B has a decoy list too or not Braganza (talk) 07:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- You have to remember that Party A has "no" seats, since all FPTP go to AA Braganza (talk) 07:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Rankedchoicevoterunless you meant every party runs a decoy list than it would be parallel voting, if just A runs a decoy list then they have an even larger advantage Braganza (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- you are right. corrected, let me know if you still think it needs to be adjusted, because I calculated 41 seats to be distributed that way Rankedchoicevoter (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- yeah i mixed up D & C Braganza (talk) 20:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- what digaram maker did you use? we could switch the others to that one to match Rankedchoicevoter (talk) 10:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Rankedchoicevoter: its a template Braganza (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Rankedchoicevoter: if you don't mind it i would replace your images Braganza (talk) 10:03, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Rankedchoicevoter: its a template Braganza (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- what digaram maker did you use? we could switch the others to that one to match Rankedchoicevoter (talk) 10:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- yeah i mixed up D & C Braganza (talk) 20:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- you are right. corrected, let me know if you still think it needs to be adjusted, because I calculated 41 seats to be distributed that way Rankedchoicevoter (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Rankedchoicevoterunless you meant every party runs a decoy list than it would be parallel voting, if just A runs a decoy list then they have an even larger advantage Braganza (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- You have to remember that Party A has "no" seats, since all FPTP go to AA Braganza (talk) 07:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- It depends If B has a decoy list too or not Braganza (talk) 07:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- I don't quite understand where you get those numbers from. 41 seats left I could see. But it's still only 30 additional seats because 11 are for blue from SMDs. So the result should be the same as parallel, or? Can it be worse than parallel? Rankedchoicevoter (talk) 07:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Table
[edit]@GhostInTheMachine i do not know how it looks for you but for me, the last chart is now too far too the right Braganza (talk) 19:51, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
- Maybe, but breaking the table so that it ends up being narrower is not the answer. I will try something that may help ... — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 21:34, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
- @GhostInTheMachine What do you mean with breaking the table? For me the table is now broken, can you please explain how it looks for you? Braganza (talk) 05:11, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
The table should look something like this:
| Logic 1 | Logic 2 | Logic 3 | Logic 4 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Diagram 1 | Diagram 2 | Diagram 3 | Diagram 4 | |||||||
| Party | ... (%) | Seats | Share (%) | Seats | Share (%) | Seats | Share (%) | Seats | Share (%) | |
| Party A | 43% | ... | ||||||||
| Party B | 41% | ... | ||||||||
| Party C | 13% | ... | ||||||||
| Party D | 3% | ... | ||||||||
| TOTAL | 100% | ... | ||||||||
| Index of ... | ... | |||||||||
| ... used | ... | |||||||||
| ... used in | ... | |||||||||
i.e. The four diagrams are above the 2*4 columns explaining the numbers in the four diagrams.
Your change created this:
| Logic 1 | Logic 2 | Logic 3 | Logic 4 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Diagram 1 | Diagram 2 | Diagram 3 | Diagram 4 | |||||||
| Party | ... (%) | Seats | Share (%) | Seats | Share (%) | Seats | Share (%) | Seats | Share (%) | |
| Party A | 43% | ... | ||||||||
| Party B | 41% | ... | ||||||||
| Party C | 13% | ... | ||||||||
| Party D | 3% | ... | ||||||||
| TOTAL | 100% | ... | ||||||||
| Index of ... | ... | |||||||||
| ... used | ... | |||||||||
| ... used in | ... | |||||||||
i.e. alignment of the diagrams now makes no sense.
I hope that explains the issue — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 09:16, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
- @GhostInTheMachine both are broken to me. Share (%), Seats, Share (%) are to the far one the right and create on empty space above and below Braganza (talk) 09:45, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
- What device are you using? Which browser? — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 12:01, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
- @GhostInTheMachine I feel like you should rather answer it yourself.
- Firefox with old Vector 2010 & Vector 2022, Mobile Chrome all show the same. The chart for AMS would be to the right of the table, Fm3dici97 apparently agrees with me. Braganza (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
- What device are you using? Which browser? — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 12:01, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
I have altered the table markup. It seems that the table now displays the same in each of the browsers that I have tried. Which browsers have rendering bugs and which do not is left as an exercise for the reader — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 15:59, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
Blink (Chrome, Edge), WebKit (Safari), and Gecko (Firefox) implement web standards differently.
yep — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 07:20, 28 April 2026 (UTC)