The major finding, of this article, is an ensemble method, but more exactly, a novel, better ranked voting system (and other variations of it), that aims to solve the problem of finding the best candidate to represent the voters. We have the source code on GitHub, for making realistic simulations of elections, based on artificial intelligence for comparing different variations of the algorithm, and other already known algorithms. We have convincing evidence that our algorithm is better than Instant-Runoff Voting, Preferential Block Voting, Single Transferable Vote, and First Past The Post (if certain, natural conditions are met, to support the wisdom of the crowds). By also comparing with the best voter, we demonstrated the wisdom of the crowds, suggesting that democracy (distributed system) is a better option than dictatorship (centralized system), if those certain, natural conditions are met. Voting systems are not restricted to politics, they are ensemble methods for artificial intelligence, but the context of this article is natural intelligence. It is important to find a system that is fair (e.g. freedom of expression on the ballot exists), especially when the outcome of the voting system has social impact: some voting systems have the unfair inevitability to trend (over time) towards the same two major candidates (Duverger's law).
翻译:本文的主要结论是一个共通方法,但更确切地说,是一个新颖的、排名更优的投票制度(以及其他变式 ), 目的是解决寻找最佳候选人代表选民的问题。 我们有GitHub的源代码, 用于根据人工智能对选举进行现实的模拟, 以比较不同的算法和其他已知的算法的不同差异。 我们有令人信服的证据表明,我们的算法比 " 即时运行投票 " 、 " 优选集团投票 " 、 " 优选集团投票 " 、 " 单一可转移选票 " 和 " 头版《邮报》 " ( 如果满足了某些自然条件, 支持群众智慧的自然条件)。 通过与最佳选民进行比较,我们展示了群众的智慧,表明民主(分配制度)比专制( 集中制度) 更好, 如果这些特定自然条件得到满足。 投票制度不局限于政治, 它们是混合的人工智能方法, 但这一文章的背景是自然智能。 重要的是找到一个公平的制度( 例如, 言论自由, ) 支持群众的智慧 。, 特别是当选举制度( ) ( ) ( 在选举结果对选举结果具有一定的公平性) 时, 。