English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

We evaluate the tendency for different voting methods to promote politicalcompromise and reduce tensions in a society by using computer simulations todetermine which voters candidates are incentivized to appeal to. We find thatInstant Runoff Voting incentivizes candidates to appeal to a wider range ofvoters than single-winner Plurality Voting, but that it still leaves candidatesfar more strongly incentivized to appeal to their base than to voters inopposing factions. In contrast, we find that other voting methods, includingSTAR (Score Then Automatic Runoff) Voting and Condorcet methods, incentivizecandidates to appeal to currently-opposed voters as much to their base, andthat these differences between voting methods become more pronounced the morecandidates are in the race.

Candidate Incentive Distributions: How voting methods shape electoral incentives