Am I still subscribed?
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: [EM] Am I still subscribed?
From: "Kristofer Munsterhjelm" km_elmet@t-online.de
Date: Thu, February 9, 2017 4:41 am
"election-methods@lists.electorama.com" election-methods@lists.electorama.com
On 02/09/2017 08:26 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: [EM] Am I still subscribed?
From: "VoteFair" electionmethods@votefair.org
Date: Thu, February 9, 2017 1:39 am
On 2/8/2017 1:59 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
It seems simple enough to just do a New Zealand ballot:
- Do you want to change the voting method? (yes/no)
- If yes wins, what do you want to replace it with? (use either
Plurality or Approval for the meta-election method here)
Nope. In order to make the decision fair, the final vote needs to be
yes/no. That means the method needs to be picked first.
well, no. this is just like saying "no" is one of the run-off finalists
and the other finalist must be picked first.
but if "no" is just one option among the other voting methods to choose
from, then this compound decision resolves exactly the same as ranking
all of the options (including the "no" option) and, if there is a
Condorcet winner, choosing the Condorcet winner. (if there isn't an
Condorcet winner, that means the voting body prefer something over
"no". but if there is a Condorcet winner among all options, that
resolves the same as everyone choosing the "yes" option first (using
Condorcet) and then stacking that up against "no" and see which option
the voters decide.
this is why i like Condorcet so much (and why i worry less about the
cycle). Condorcet makes all of the options, including the status quo,
all positioned on a flat playing field.
A Condorcet-in-spirit referendum system could go like this:
- Order the options randomly.
- Ask a yes/no about whether the voters prefer the first option to the
second.
- Ask a yes/no about whether the voters prefer the winner of the
previous round to the third option.
- ... and so on up to the last option, asking a yes/no about the winner
of the last round compared to the kth option.
in presentation, this is not flat. �the kth option is always in the "final round".
now, up to here, we're describing what happens on an individual ballot...
Whichever option wins is the overall winner, and it must be the CW if it
exists (and voters never change their minds between the rounds). The
cycle tiebreaker is in effect to pick a random option in the Smith set.
... but now we have tabulated voting results. �how did we get here?
But it's really cumbersome.
i don't see it as equivalently flat as a simple ranked ballot decided by a Condocet-compliant method (and a CW existing).
in a referendum, why does the status-quo option have to be a "special option"? �why can't it be just one of the
several options being chosen from?
--
r b-j � � � � � � � � �rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
On 02/09/2017 10:56 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: [EM] Am I still subscribed?
From: "Kristofer Munsterhjelm" km_elmet@t-online.de
Date: Thu, February 9, 2017 4:41 am
To: rbj@audioimagination.com
"election-methods@lists.electorama.com"
election-methods@lists.electorama.com
On 02/09/2017 08:26 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
---------------------------- Original Message
Subject: Re: [EM] Am I still subscribed?
From: "VoteFair" electionmethods@votefair.org
Date: Thu, February 9, 2017 1:39 am
To: "election-methods@lists.electorama.com"
election-methods@lists.electorama.com
On 2/8/2017 1:59 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
It seems simple enough to just do a New Zealand ballot:
- Do you want to change the voting method? (yes/no)
- If yes wins, what do you want to replace it with? (use either
Plurality or Approval for the meta-election method here)
Nope. In order to make the decision fair, the final vote needs to be
yes/no. That means the method needs to be picked first.
well, no. this is just like saying "no" is one of the run-off finalists
and the other finalist must be picked first.
but if "no" is just one option among the other voting methods to choose
from, then this compound decision resolves exactly the same as ranking
all of the options (including the "no" option) and, if there is a
Condorcet winner, choosing the Condorcet winner. (if there isn't an
Condorcet winner, that means the voting body prefer something over
"no". but if there is a Condorcet winner among all options, that
resolves the same as everyone choosing the "yes" option first (using
Condorcet) and then stacking that up against "no" and see which option
the voters decide.
this is why i like Condorcet so much (and why i worry less about the
cycle). Condorcet makes all of the options, including the status quo,
all positioned on a flat playing field.
A Condorcet-in-spirit referendum system could go like this:
- Order the options randomly.
- Ask a yes/no about whether the voters prefer the first option to the
second. - Ask a yes/no about whether the voters prefer the winner of the
previous round to the third option. - ... and so on up to the last option, asking a yes/no about the winner
of the last round compared to the kth option.
in presentation, this is not flat. the kth option is always in the
"final round".
now, up to here, we're describing what happens on an individual ballot...
Well, what option is in the final round depends on who survived. The
challenger in the final round has the benefit that it hasn't had to go
through the entire gauntlet, but the drawback that it's facing the
winner that did go through it.
To take a concrete example, suppose there are three options: A, B, and
C. Suppose the random reordering goes like this: "C, A, B". And suppose
that, were you to hold a Condorcet election, the pairwise results would be:
A beats B and C (hence is the CW)
C beats B
B beats nobody,
and that the voters don't change their minds between the rounds.
Then the procedure works like this:
First round:
- The ballot asks the voters which they prefer of C and A (the first two
in the random ordering). Since the voters' pairwise preference for this
contest is that A beats C, A proceeds to the second round.
Second round:
- The ballot asks the voters which they prefer of A and B (the winner
from the previous round and the challenger according to the random
ordering). Since the voters' pairwise preference for this contest is
that A beats B, A wins.
Whichever option wins is the overall winner, and it must be the CW if it
exists (and voters never change their minds between the rounds). The
cycle tiebreaker is in effect to pick a random option in the Smith set.
... but now we have tabulated voting results. how did we get here?
I'm simply saying this under the caveat that the voters don't change
their minds between rounds; i.e. that if in hypothetical universe A you
held a Condorcet election, then in hypothetical universe B, a voter X
would say "I prefer A to B" on a yes/no question about A vs B iff he
ranked A ahead of B in universe A.
In a practical setting, the voters could change their minds between
rounds, but then you can't really speak of a CW or a Condorcet election
to compare to.
For similar reasons, it's hard to say that top two runoff fails
monotonicity, because the voters can change their minds between rounds.
But if you make the assumption that they don't, then top two runoff is
the same thing as the contingent vote, and the contingent vote does fail
monotonicity (for the same reason IRV does).
But it's really cumbersome.
i don't see it as equivalently flat as a simple ranked ballot decided by
a Condocet-compliant method (and a CW existing).
in a referendum, why does the status-quo option have to be a "special
option"? why can't it be just one of the several options being chosen from?
It doesn't need to be. The status quo option could easily have been C
above, or B for that matter.
On 02/09/2017 08:26 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
In a referendum, why does the status-quo option have to be a "special
option"? why can't it be just one of the
several options being chosen from?
The recent Brexit and Trump elections reveal that voters often wake up
to discover that they voted in a way that opposed what they really
prefer. In other words, it takes time to clearly understand each
choice, and the implications of each choice.
Now combine that confusion with the fact that many people do not know
how to vote beyond saying "Here is the choice I want, otherwise don't
make any change, and I oppose all other choices."
And toss in media-focus issues, where two options is about all that some
news sources want to cover -- because that's what attracts the most
readers/viewers.
In my book "Ending The Hidden Unfairness In U.S. Elections" I explain
that a no-change option must always be handled as a separate voting
step, after having identified the most popular of the "change" choices.
And surely no one is going to claim that approval voting can be used
when a no-change option is one of several options, right?
Richard Fobes
On 2/9/2017 1:56 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: [EM] Am I still subscribed?
From: "Kristofer Munsterhjelm" km_elmet@t-online.de
Date: Thu, February 9, 2017 4:41 am
To: rbj@audioimagination.com
"election-methods@lists.electorama.com"
election-methods@lists.electorama.com
On 02/09/2017 08:26 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
---------------------------- Original Message
Subject: Re: [EM] Am I still subscribed?
From: "VoteFair" electionmethods@votefair.org
Date: Thu, February 9, 2017 1:39 am
To: "election-methods@lists.electorama.com"
election-methods@lists.electorama.com
On 2/8/2017 1:59 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
It seems simple enough to just do a New Zealand ballot:
- Do you want to change the voting method? (yes/no)
- If yes wins, what do you want to replace it with? (use either
Plurality or Approval for the meta-election method here)
Nope. In order to make the decision fair, the final vote needs to be
yes/no. That means the method needs to be picked first.
well, no. this is just like saying "no" is one of the run-off finalists
and the other finalist must be picked first.
but if "no" is just one option among the other voting methods to choose
from, then this compound decision resolves exactly the same as ranking
all of the options (including the "no" option) and, if there is a
Condorcet winner, choosing the Condorcet winner. (if there isn't an
Condorcet winner, that means the voting body prefer something over
"no". but if there is a Condorcet winner among all options, that
resolves the same as everyone choosing the "yes" option first (using
Condorcet) and then stacking that up against "no" and see which option
the voters decide.
this is why i like Condorcet so much (and why i worry less about the
cycle). Condorcet makes all of the options, including the status quo,
all positioned on a flat playing field.
A Condorcet-in-spirit referendum system could go like this:
- Order the options randomly.
- Ask a yes/no about whether the voters prefer the first option to the
second. - Ask a yes/no about whether the voters prefer the winner of the
previous round to the third option. - ... and so on up to the last option, asking a yes/no about the winner
of the last round compared to the kth option.
in presentation, this is not flat. the kth option is always in the
"final round".
now, up to here, we're describing what happens on an individual ballot...
Whichever option wins is the overall winner, and it must be the CW if it
exists (and voters never change their minds between the rounds). The
cycle tiebreaker is in effect to pick a random option in the Smith set.
... but now we have tabulated voting results. how did we get here?
But it's really cumbersome.
i don't see it as equivalently flat as a simple ranked ballot decided
by a Condocet-compliant method (and a CW existing).
in a referendum, why does the status-quo option have to be a "special
option"? why can't it be just one of the several options being chosen
from?
--
r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
list info