Oh, sorry, I misread whom the post was from. It was originally from Garman, not Chris. I realize & acknowledge that STAR & Smith//Score are both nominated. Sorry about missing that at first. On Sat, Apr 6, 2024 at 15:32 Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@gmail.com> wrote: > I haven’t blocked you. I’ve only blocked Bristow, Garman, & Toby Pereira. > > I have no right to decree what can or can’t be nominated. > > You nominated STAR, so it’s nominated. > > There’s a big difference between EqualVote & FairVote. I admit that my > intention wasn’t in keeping with objective information-sharing, but it was > for a well-meaning reason. > > I’m not doing this to attack IRV. I want to expose the unpopularity of > FairVote’s proposal. It’s not against IRV. I’ve said that Hare might work > if it were honestly offered. But there’s nothing honest about FairVote. > > Anyway I didn’t block you, & of course STAR is nominated, since you > nominated it. > > Peace! > > > > On Sat, Apr 6, 2024 at 13:45 Chris Benham <cbenhamau@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > >> >> >> >> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >> Subject: Re: [EM] Poll on voting-systems, to inform voters in upcoming >> enactment-elections >> Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2024 17:42:43 +0200 >> From: Michael Garman <michael.garman@rankthevote.us> >> <michael.garman@rankthevote.us> >> To: Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@gmail.com> <email9648742@gmail.com> >> CC: Chris Benham <cbenhamau@yahoo.com.au> <cbenhamau@yahoo.com.au>, >> Kevin Venzke <stepjak@yahoo.fr> <stepjak@yahoo.fr>, >> election-methods@lists.electorama.com >> <election-methods@lists.electorama.com> >> <election-methods@lists.electorama.com> >> >> >> what if it finishes low here? That would be worse for the Eugene >> initiative than not including it. >> >> I thought this poll was meant to be an objective search for the truth, >> not a cudgel to advance an agenda. I also think you’re vastly >> overestimating the influence this little poll is going to have. >> >> In any case, I’m nominating STAR. Someone please relay the message to >> Ossipoff as I believe he’s blocked me. >> >> Michael J. Garman | he/him >> >> Digital & Campus Organizer | Rank the Vote >> >> Book a meeting with me! <https://calendly.com/michael-j-garman> >> >> (401) 644-4108 | michael.garman@rankthevote.us >> >> >> On Sat, Apr 6, 2024 at 2:16 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> This is to acknowledge the nominations of Smith//Default-Approval, >>> Smith//Explicit-Approval, Margins-Sorted Approval, & Smith//DAC. >>> >>> I’d say include STAR, because that’s what its advocates would want. …or >>> would they? Its enactment is going to be voted-on in Eugene next month, & >>> what if it finishes low here? That would be worse for the Eugene initiative >>> than not including it. >>> >>> Of course showing voters about methods’ popularity here is my >>> stated-purpose for the poll, & the fact that it’s about to be voted on for >>> enactment would seem to suggest including it. >>> >>> But the advocates of STAR have been working hard, completely in good >>> faith, & STAR is a lot better than IRV. Those are two good reasons to let >>> EqualVote decide on STAR’s inclusion in the poll. >>> >>> I’ll ask the EqualVote group, & go by what they say. >>> >>> (In fact STAR, while more complicated than Approval, has nothing like >>> the amount of count-complexity of Condorcet, or the consequent amount of >>> count-insecurity & count-fraud vulnerability. I personally don’t propose >>> STAR, because I regard it as an inbetween compromise between Approval & the >>> ranked-methods, & I want the absolutely minimal. (I only propose Condorcet >>> to jurisdictions where people insist on rankings.) …but, by my >>> simplicity-standard, STAR scores high, even though I don’t propose it.) >>> >>> So the nominations list so-far is now (listed in order of nomination): >>> >>> Approval >>> RP(wv) >>> Schulze >>> IRV >>> Plurality >>> MinMax(wv) >>> Black >>> Baldwin >>> Benham >>> Woodall >>> Schwartz-Woodall >>> Smith//Approval (of all ranked) >>> Smith//Approval (of what is specified) >>> Margin-Sorted Approval >>> Smith//DAC >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Apr 6, 2024 at 04:03 Chris Benham <cbenhamau@yahoo.com.au> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> I would like to nominate several methods. >>>> >>>> Smith//Approval (Ranking): >>>> >>>> Voters rank from the top only those candidates they "approve", >>>> equal-ranking allowed, >>>> the most approved member of the voted Smith set wins. >>>> >>>> Smith//Approval (specified cutoff): >>>> >>>> Voters rank from the top however many candidates they wish and can also >>>> specify an approval >>>> cutoff/threshold. Default approval is only for candidates ranked below >>>> no others (i.e. ranked top >>>> or equal-top). >>>> The most approved member of the Smith set wins. >>>> >>>> Margins Sorted Approval (specified cutoff): >>>> >>>> Voters rank from the top however many candidates they wish and can also >>>> specify an approval >>>> cutoff/threshold. Default approval is only for candidates ranked below >>>> no others (i.e. ranked top >>>> or equal-top). >>>> >>>> A Forrest Simmons invention. Candidates are listed in approval score >>>> order and if any adjacent pairs >>>> are pairwise out of order then this is corrected by flipping the >>>> out-of-order pair with the smallest >>>> margin. If there is a tie for this we flip the less approved pair. >>>> Repeat until there are no adjacent pairs >>>> of candidates that are pairwise out of order, then elect the >>>> highest-ordered candidate. >>>> >>>> Smith//:DAC >>>> >>>> Voters rank from the top however many candidates they wish, >>>> equal-ranking allowed. >>>> Eliminate candidates not in the Smith set and then apply >>>> Woodall's Descending Acquiescing Coalitions method. >>>> >>>> There is a method I hate that is apparently contending in the real >>>> world: "STAR". Given the stated purpose of >>>> this poll, is there a case for including it? >>>> >>>> Chris Benham >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *Michael Ossipoff* email9648742 at gmail.com >>>> <election-methods%40lists.electorama.com?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BEM%5D%20Poll%20on%20voting-systems%2C%0A%20to%20inform%20voters%20in%20upcoming%20enactment-elections&In-Reply-To=%3CCAOKDY5BkSGJkX%3D7zWXBr2t1SBNVMNj96wm-T8ubvr_wGM5h51w%40mail.gmail.com%3E> >>>> *Wed Apr 3 22:13:28 PDT 2024* >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> EM used to do a lot of polls, but now never does. So I wouldn’t propose >>>> one, if it weren’t for the fact that, this year, the voters of at least two >>>> states are going to vote on whether to enact a certain voting-system. >>>> >>>> It seems to me—tell me if I’m wrong—that those people have a right to know >>>> how people familiar with voting-systems feel about the relative merits of >>>> some voting-systems. >>>> >>>> So, though I claim that polls are valuable for demonstrating the experience >>>> of using the voting systems, & how they work, & what they’ll do—& are >>>> therefore useful & worthwhile for their own sake—this poll that I now >>>> propose isn’t a poll for its own sake. >>>> >>>> It is, as I said, proposed for the important practical purpose of letting >>>> the voters in the upcoming enactment-elections know how we feel about the >>>> relative merits of some voting-systems, including the one that they’re >>>> about to vote on the enactment of. >>>> >>>> The voting-method for the poll: >>>> >>>> It seems to me that Schulze is the most popular ranked voting-system, among >>>> the people at EM. >>>> >>>> …& it seems to me that the last time we voted on EM’s collective favorite >>>> voting-system, Approval won. >>>> >>>> Those seem the top-two, in EM popularity. >>>> >>>> >>>> ---- >>> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list >>> info >>> >>