Hi everyone,

 Oh Michael...where do I begin?  Your apparent move to the dark
 side makes me sad.  I realize that this intro may sound
 condescending, but I truly don't mean it that way.  I deeply
 respect your opinion. YOU were the one who taught me about
 "center squeeze" in 1995 or so, and made me rethink AV/PV/IRV/RCV
 (or whatever the name of the week is).  I just think you're
 incorrect about FairVote.

 More inline below.....

 On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 10:32 PM Michael Ossipoff
 <email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:

     Yes, that fancier Sequential Pairwise ordering method would
     make it harder for a strategist to guess anything about the
     comparison-order…when, instead of the candidate’s top-count,
     it uses the sum of the top-counts of those above him on each
     ballot.

     An extra layer of unpredictability for a would-be strategist.

     The vulnerability of the simplest-defined procedure would
     have to be weighed against what polls & focus-groups say
     about people’s requirement for definition-simplicity & brevity.


 RCV is already poorly understood.  When I moved to San Francisco
 in 2011, I expected to grudgingly like voting in RCV elections,
 and I expected to enjoy ranking my choices   What I found instead
 was that very few people here understand how votes are counted,
 and many folks in my lefty political tribe here take great pride
 in their ignorance of math and the inner workings of their
 electoral system, trusting that the powers-that-be will count
 things correctly.

 As "exhibit A", I will point to the recent clown show in Alameda
 County (i.e. just a few miles east of me, on the other side of a
 puddle known as the "San Francisco Bay"):
 https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Alameda-County-admits-tallying-error-in-17682520.php
 It would seem that they had been counting RCV elections wrong for
 DECADES, and only noticed the problem in 2022.  Simplicity and
 precinct summability matters.

     Undeniably the more multi-layered & unpredictable ordering
     procedure is more strategy-proof & better.

     Strategy-evaluation for Condorcet-complying pairwise-count
     methods has proven to be complicated & more difficult than
     one would expect.


 This I will agree with. That is why I've hopped on the approval
 voting bandwagon for single-winner reform.  I've been
 (more-or-less) aligned with FairVote when it comes to
 multi-winner reform, since the many of the problems with STV
 dissipate as the number of seats being selected for rises.  For
 example, using STV to proportionally select members of a 5-seat
 board helps ensure diverse representation. I'm not aware of
 anyplace in the SF Bay Area that is doing that, though.  What
 they do is divide the land inside the city/county/whatever into
 districts, and then performs single-winner elections in each
 district.  It's horrific.

     But it now seems for sure that there are such methods that
     are sufficiently offensive-strategy-proof or well-protected
     from offensive-strategy.  It’s only a question of how many &
     which ones.

     The Condorcet-IRV-Runoff hybrids hold promise, with merit to
     always be balanced with what is heard in polls & focus groups
     about definition-brevity.

     So I’m sure that I’ll propose & recommend good Condorcet
     versions (even if I don’t yet know which ones & how many)
     over IRV.

     …but I’ll nonetheless include IRV among the methods that I
     offer, because it’s better than a lot of people believe.  
     …though its merit & workability strongly depend on the
     electorate & the candidate-lineup.

     I.e. Because it isn’t Condorcet-complying, it’s necessary
     that the electorate aren’t timid lesser-evil giveaway voters.



 Back in 2018, I was heavily involved in lefty politics.  The
 mayor (Ed Lee) dropped dead while grocery shopping at a Safeway
 that I had been to many times.  He wasn't 500 years old; and he
 seemed in good health.  It was truly a surprise to everyone,
 Suddenly, we had nearly a dozen local politicians with almost no
 name recognition competing to be the next mayor:
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_San_Francisco_mayoral_special_election

 The good news: the Condorcet winner (London Breed) won the
 election.  The bad news: it was a close election, almost
 exclusively centered on identity politics (though YIMBY vs NIMBY
 also played a factor).  There were three well-funded candidates
 (Breed: who was "the establishment" candidate, born and raised in
 the Fillmore, which USED TO BE an affordable neighborhood in SF,
 and she would become our first Black woman serving as mayor),
 Mark Leno (who would have become our first openly gay mayor), and
 Jane Kim (who promised to be our first Korean-American mayor).

 Having only lived here since 2011, I still considered myself
 new(-ish) to the political scene.  I asked a friend (who I met in
 a lefty political org here in SF) who I should vote for.  He said
 "None of them. They're all corrupt.  Breed's funded by Conway." 
 I didn't know who George Conway was at the time, but that didn't
 matter.  I was looking for a mainstream(-ish) candidate to put
 SOMEWHERE in my ranking, so that I could evaluate the niche
 candidates relative to my mainstream anchor.  I pressed him: "if
 someone was holding a gun to your head, and you had to choose
 between Breed, Kim, or Leno, who would you choose?".  He refused
 to answer, despite how hard I pressed on the issue.

 The polls leading up to the election were spotty and difficult to
 decipher.  Most of the news coverage was about the Breed/Leno/Kim
 food fight.  Breed had served as mayor for a day or two after Ed
 Lee died, but there was a political food fight over her running
 for mayor after getting to be the incumbent, so she was removed
 as mayor.  I think that helped her, since (at least for me) it
 made her a bit more sympathetic candidate, and given that the
 rules said she should be mayor (as previous President of the
 Board of Supervisors).  Many SF voters get high and mighty about
 "rule of law", and yet, the law was changed just as soon as a
 Black woman took office.

 My point: I'm guessing that my activist friend was one of the
 dreaded "bullet voters" that FairVote misinforms people about.  I
 find FairVote a flawed organization, and I specifically think
 that founder/leader Rob Richie to be a deeply unethical (perhaps
 even Machiavellian) political player. Approval voting finds
 consensus candidates in a way that I think the electorate can
 understand.  "Mark all of the candidates you approve of, and the
 candidate with the highest approval rating wins"  I suspect that
 approval voting is better at rooting out corruption than RCV, and
 I have some more anecdotal evidence to back me up.

 St. Louis switched their mayoral elections to approval top-two. 
 The primary election selects the two candidates with the highest
 approval rating, and the general election decides between the
 last two. All eyes in the electoral reform community were on St.
 Louis, and St. Louis also elected their first Black woman to be
 their mayor:
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_St._Louis_mayoral_election

 If you've never been to St. Louis, I'll break it down for you. 
 The north part of town is the flood plain at the confluence of
 the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers.  It's where the poor people
 live, and many of them are Black.  South of Interstate 44 (which
 replaced "Route 66") is where one finds the rich people, where
 many houses were built for slaveowners (back in the day).  The
 St. Louis area has long been the fulcrum of race relations in
 this country.  For example, many folks know about the
 predominantly Black suburb Ferguson in the flight path of STL,
 also known as "Lombard".  Famous Nazi sympathizer and aviator
 Charles Lindbergh flew the "Spirit of St. Louis" when he made his
 first solo transcontinental flight in 1927.

 As an outsider who has mainly been through St. Louis (many
 times), and who has only stayed overnight in St. Louis a few
 nights, I only have a superficial understanding of the place. 
 But I watched the Wikipedia articles about the election with an
 eagle eye.  It would seem that Lewis Cass
 (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_E._Reed>) was the sore
 loser, and it appeared he was starting to lead an anti-approval
 campaign in St. Louis.  However, Reed (and a couple of his
 cronies on the Board of Aldermen) were caught on video accepting
 bribes from undercover FBI agents.  They're in prison now.

 I don't know much about Tishaura Jones, but all outside evidence
 suggests she's a good-government type who is cleaning up the
 politics of St. Louis.  I'm hopeful she gets re-elected in 2025,
 and that FairVote doesn't try to get approval voting replaced
 with RCV with the help of useful idiots that will take money in
 exchange for supporting the "correct" policies.

     But an electorate that has just enacted IRV in a referendum
     didn’t do so because they want to rank Lesser-Evil over their
     favorite. They enacted it because they want to rank
     sincerely, to express & fully help their favorite.

     Let’s support Oregon’s IRV (RCV) referendum next year!

     Though IRV doesn’t meet the Condorcet Criterion, it meets
     Mutual-Majority:

     IRV always elects the candidate of the largest faction of the
     Mutual-Majority.  …The favorite candidate of the Mutual-Majority.

     IRV didn’t “fail” in Burlington & Alaska. It did what it’s
     supposed to do.


 RCV elected the extreme candidates, rather than the compromise. 
 Sometimes, it elects the "good guy/gal" candidate (like Mary
 Peltola), but sometimes, it elects an incompetent candidate (like
 Bob Kiss), and it seems quite likely to me that Alaska will elect
 an extreme right-wing Republican candidate when Peltola runs for
 reelection in 2024.  Approval (and probably STAR) will elect
 candidates toward the center of public opinion, but RCV gets
 random when elections get close:
 https://electowiki.org/wiki/Yee_diagram

 Under approval and STAR, those of us who think of ourselves as
 "left-wing" are not as likely to get lucky every so often and get
 a minority candidate like Mary Peltola (who sadly wasn't quite
 able to appeal to the median voter in Alaska, it seems), but
 we're also not playing Russian roulette and potentially getting a
 right-wing reactionary that could be funded by foreign
 adversaries.  I've heard (from someone, I can't remember who)
 that one can see Russia from Alaska. :-)

     We don’t yet have a big Condorcet organization, or referenda,
     initiatives or strong lobbying for it, but let’s support the
     already ongoing enactment efforts for IRV, now named RCV.


 Let's not.  FairVote isn't that big (only $4.5MM/year in annual
 revenue, based on my cursory investigation).  The Center for
 Election Science pulls in over $1MM/year, and is looking for new
 executive director (or "CEO" as they say:
 https://electionscience.org/about/careers-and-board/ ), and I'm
 optimistic that they may just hire someone who is more
 sympathetic to Condorcet consistency than the prior executive
 director.  The Equal Vote Coaltion is a small scrappy startup,
 but seems to be using their money better than the prior two orgs
 (and seems far more amenable and adaptable to Internet feedback
 than either of the larger orgs).  Having helped a small-ish
 non-profit ($10MM/year in 2010 when I joined) become a larger
 organization ($60MM/year to $70MM/year or so these days, I
 think), I've learned not to get too enamored of (or intimidated
 by) "big non-profits".

 If Rob Richie can prove that he's not unethical, and come to the
 table with the rest of the electoral reform community, and debate
 openly and honestly, then maybe I'd consider teaming up with
 them.  Perhaps the FairVote Board can fire Richie, since he
 promised effective steps toward proportional representation, and
 hasn't achieved that after three decades.  He's only burned
 bridges and salted the earth for effective reform efforts through
 backroom dealing (e.g. what FairVote did in Seattle in 2022).

 As of right now, there's someone with the username "RRichie" that
 doesn't disclose their clear conflict-of-interest on English
 Wikipedia, but often makes very pro-RCV arguments (and
 pro-FairVote marketing) under that name:
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RRichie

 Rob


     On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 18:24 Forest Simmons
     <forest.simmons21@gmail.com> wrote:

         So called BTR-IRV, "Bottom Two Runoff IRV" goes along
         those lines.

         You probably remember "Benham" that runs IRV elimination
         until there remains a candidate undefeated by any of the
         other remaining candidates.

         This reminds me of basing the Sequential Pairwise
         Elimination agenda order on Top preferences ... by using
         those preferences to "de-clone" the Borda agenda order:

         The agenda order is given by SB(X), the Sum over all
         ballots B of the first place votes of the candidates
         ranked above X on B.

         The larger SB(X), the later X is (on average) in the
         rankings, and the rearlier X is in the elimination agenda.



         On Wed, Sep 20, 2023, 4:56 AM Michael Ossipoff
         <email9648742@gmail.com> wrote:

             If, using voted rankings, Sequential-Pairwise’s
             comparison-order is determined by giving, to the
             candidates with higher top-count score, a later
             position in the comparison-order, so that voters
             don’t know what the comparison-order will be…

             …

             …& if voters’ knowledge of eachother’s preferences is
             no better than it is now in political-elections…

             …

             …Does that Sequential-Pairwise election have an
             offensive strategy with gain-expectation comparable
             to what it would have in MinMax, RP & CSSD?

             …And, if so, is there a defensive strategy to thwart
             or deter that offensive strategy?

             …That seems of interest because Sequential-Pairwise
             is so much less computationally-demanding than the
             other pairwise-count methods.

             If, using voted rankings, Sequential-Pairwise’s
             comparison-order is determined by giving, to the
             candidates with higher top-count score, a later
             position in the comparison-order, so that voters
             don’t know what the comparison-order will be…

             …

             …& if voters’ knowledge of eachother’s preferences is
             no better than it is now in political-elections…

             …

             …Does that Sequential-Pairwise election have an
             offensive strategy with gain-expectation comparable
             to what it would have in MinMax, RP & CSSD?

             …And, if so, is there a defensive strategy to thwart
             or deter that offensive strategy?

             …That seems of interest because Sequential-Pairwise
             is so much less computationally-demanding than the
             other pairwise-count methods.

             ----
             Election-Methods mailing list - see
             https://electorama.com/em for list info

     ----
     Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em
     for list info

 ----
 Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for
 list info

On 22/09/2023 11:12, Richard Lung wrote: > > > That voters are able to make their own lists, in number order of > choice, wresting politics from the politicians, in the nation, and in > the world, is a fact to be welcomed, without reservation, not saddened by. > > It is no part of the voters job to decide alternate niceties of the > count. There is such a thing in society, which indeed society depends > on, called the division of labor. This applies also to election > method, with regard to the vote, for everyone, and the count, a > specialism, tho you wouldn’t think so from the oversights of reform > opponents. > > When politicians ask for a refinement in the count of ranked choice > votes, they are asking what lawyers call a leading question, in other > words, a misleading question, by assuming the answer lies within a > single member system. What is more, they are doing the first thing > you’re not supposed to do, according to philosophy of scientific > method. They are presuming what one is supposed to prove, by insisting > on some elimination count procedure. > > FairVote has at least kept in touch with a tradition of election > reform going back to Thomas Hare. The Hare system was successively > improved and promoted mainly by mathematicians, invented by Andrae, > modified by Droop and Gregory; promoted by Leonard Courtney, a > Cambridge mathematics Tripos; and those under-appreciated reformers, > Hoag and Hallett in the USA. As well as natural science educated HG > Wells (including biology by TH Huxley); JFS Ross, an engineer; Enid > Lakeman, a chemist.In short, the democratic election reform tradition > that The Machine had virtually obliterated in a score of cities, > including the attempt to obliterate Cambridge Massachusetts PR, with > six anti-STV referendums in sixteen years. > > At the same time, post-war social choice theory applied axiomatic > deduction to its undemocratic majority counting principle, it > logically declared to be undemocratic (as in Theorem Arrow). > Self-evident principles: evident to no one but oneself, Ambrose Bierce > defined in The Devil’s dictionary. Principles cannot just be stated. > They have to be tested. It took a century and the advent of computer > counting, before Brian Meek could more thoro’ly rationalise the > transfer of surplus votes in a proportional count. > > And elections are still two-truth systems, with different counts for > elections and exclusions of candidates. A one-truth system, in keeping > with the aspirations of the sciences, would require the Meek surplus > transfer election also to be applied to the exclusion count, replacing > its traditional “last past the post” count. Such a “binomial” count, > for a one truth election, won’t fully work, however, without counting > all the votes, including abstentions, telling how much the voters are > electing or excluding candidates. > > Regards, > > Richard Lung. > > > > On 21/09/2023 22:39, Michael Garman wrote: >> Rob, >> >> > RCV is already poorly understood.  When I moved to San Francisco in >> 2011, I expected to grudgingly like voting in RCV elections, and I >> expected to enjoy ranking my choices   What I found instead was that >> very few people here understand how votes are counted, and many folks >> in my lefty political tribe here take great pride in their ignorance >> of math and the inner workings of their electoral system, trusting >> that the powers-that-be will count things correctly. >> >> This claim isn't substantiated by any of the extensive polling on the >> subject. 85% >> <https://www.alaskansforbetterelections.com/polling-shows-alaskan-voters-understand-ranked-choice-voting/> >> of Alaska voters reported that it was "simple" after its first use, >> as did at least 93% >> <http://readme.readmedia.com/RANK-THE-VOTE-NYC-RELEASES-EDISON-RESEARCH-EXIT-POLL-ON-THE-ELECTION/17989282?utm_source=newswire&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=media_pr_emails> >> of NYC voters in every racial group. A 2013 survey found that 89% >> <https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1002/naticivirevi.106.1.0025?seq=2> of >> voters in California cities using IRV find it "easy." >> >> > As "exhibit A", I will point to the recent clown show in Alameda County >> >> Oh, come on. You can't possibly be suggesting that human >> administrative error is equivalent to an inherent failure of an >> electoral system. Even administrators of FPTP elections, as was >> recently the case in DeKalb County, GA, make mistakes. >> <https://www.ajc.com/politics/miscount-in-dekalb-caused-by-voting-computer-programming-errors/Z5WPVW5UKVBRTMN4TUZGZW2LLM/> >> >> > RCV elected the extreme candidates, rather than the compromise >> You're seizing on outliers. All but three >> <https://democracysos.substack.com/p/alaska-election-results-show-why> >> of the nearly 400 IRV elections that have been conducted in the US >> since 2004 have elected the Condorcet winner. >> >> MJG >> >> On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 5:26 PM Rob Lanphier <roblan@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi everyone, >> >> Oh Michael...where do I begin?  Your apparent move to the dark >> side makes me sad.  I realize that this intro may sound >> condescending, but I truly don't mean it that way.  I deeply >> respect your opinion. YOU were the one who taught me about >> "center squeeze" in 1995 or so, and made me rethink AV/PV/IRV/RCV >> (or whatever the name of the week is).  I just think you're >> incorrect about FairVote. >> >> More inline below..... >> >> On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 10:32 PM Michael Ossipoff >> <email9648742@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Yes, that fancier Sequential Pairwise ordering method would >> make it harder for a strategist to guess anything about the >> comparison-order…when, instead of the candidate’s top-count, >> it uses the sum of the top-counts of those above him on each >> ballot. >> >> An extra layer of unpredictability for a would-be strategist. >> >> The vulnerability of the simplest-defined procedure would >> have to be weighed against what polls & focus-groups say >> about people’s requirement for definition-simplicity & brevity. >> >> >> RCV is already poorly understood.  When I moved to San Francisco >> in 2011, I expected to grudgingly like voting in RCV elections, >> and I expected to enjoy ranking my choices   What I found instead >> was that very few people here understand how votes are counted, >> and many folks in my lefty political tribe here take great pride >> in their ignorance of math and the inner workings of their >> electoral system, trusting that the powers-that-be will count >> things correctly. >> >> As "exhibit A", I will point to the recent clown show in Alameda >> County (i.e. just a few miles east of me, on the other side of a >> puddle known as the "San Francisco Bay"): >> https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Alameda-County-admits-tallying-error-in-17682520.php >> It would seem that they had been counting RCV elections wrong for >> DECADES, and only noticed the problem in 2022.  Simplicity and >> precinct summability matters. >> >> Undeniably the more multi-layered & unpredictable ordering >> procedure is more strategy-proof & better. >> >> Strategy-evaluation for Condorcet-complying pairwise-count >> methods has proven to be complicated & more difficult than >> one would expect. >> >> >> This I will agree with. That is why I've hopped on the approval >> voting bandwagon for single-winner reform.  I've been >> (more-or-less) aligned with FairVote when it comes to >> multi-winner reform, since the many of the problems with STV >> dissipate as the number of seats being selected for rises.  For >> example, using STV to proportionally select members of a 5-seat >> board helps ensure diverse representation. I'm not aware of >> anyplace in the SF Bay Area that is doing that, though.  What >> they do is divide the land inside the city/county/whatever into >> districts, and then performs single-winner elections in each >> district.  It's horrific. >> >> But it now seems for sure that there are such methods that >> are sufficiently offensive-strategy-proof or well-protected >> from offensive-strategy.  It’s only a question of how many & >> which ones. >> >> The Condorcet-IRV-Runoff hybrids hold promise, with merit to >> always be balanced with what is heard in polls & focus groups >> about definition-brevity. >> >> So I’m sure that I’ll propose & recommend good Condorcet >> versions (even if I don’t yet know which ones & how many) >> over IRV. >> >> …but I’ll nonetheless include IRV among the methods that I >> offer, because it’s better than a lot of people believe.   >> …though its merit & workability strongly depend on the >> electorate & the candidate-lineup. >> >> I.e. Because it isn’t Condorcet-complying, it’s necessary >> that the electorate aren’t timid lesser-evil giveaway voters. >> >> >> >> Back in 2018, I was heavily involved in lefty politics.  The >> mayor (Ed Lee) dropped dead while grocery shopping at a Safeway >> that I had been to many times.  He wasn't 500 years old; and he >> seemed in good health.  It was truly a surprise to everyone, >> Suddenly, we had nearly a dozen local politicians with almost no >> name recognition competing to be the next mayor: >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_San_Francisco_mayoral_special_election >> >> The good news: the Condorcet winner (London Breed) won the >> election.  The bad news: it was a close election, almost >> exclusively centered on identity politics (though YIMBY vs NIMBY >> also played a factor).  There were three well-funded candidates >> (Breed: who was "the establishment" candidate, born and raised in >> the Fillmore, which USED TO BE an affordable neighborhood in SF, >> and she would become our first Black woman serving as mayor), >> Mark Leno (who would have become our first openly gay mayor), and >> Jane Kim (who promised to be our first Korean-American mayor). >> >> Having only lived here since 2011, I still considered myself >> new(-ish) to the political scene.  I asked a friend (who I met in >> a lefty political org here in SF) who I should vote for.  He said >> "None of them. They're all corrupt.  Breed's funded by Conway."  >> I didn't know who George Conway was at the time, but that didn't >> matter.  I was looking for a mainstream(-ish) candidate to put >> SOMEWHERE in my ranking, so that I could evaluate the niche >> candidates relative to my mainstream anchor.  I pressed him: "if >> someone was holding a gun to your head, and you had to choose >> between Breed, Kim, or Leno, who would you choose?".  He refused >> to answer, despite how hard I pressed on the issue. >> >> The polls leading up to the election were spotty and difficult to >> decipher.  Most of the news coverage was about the Breed/Leno/Kim >> food fight.  Breed had served as mayor for a day or two after Ed >> Lee died, but there was a political food fight over her running >> for mayor after getting to be the incumbent, so she was removed >> as mayor.  I think that helped her, since (at least for me) it >> made her a bit more sympathetic candidate, and given that the >> rules said she should be mayor (as previous President of the >> Board of Supervisors).  Many SF voters get high and mighty about >> "rule of law", and yet, the law was changed just as soon as a >> Black woman took office. >> >> My point: I'm guessing that my activist friend was one of the >> dreaded "bullet voters" that FairVote misinforms people about.  I >> find FairVote a flawed organization, and I specifically think >> that founder/leader Rob Richie to be a deeply unethical (perhaps >> even Machiavellian) political player. Approval voting finds >> consensus candidates in a way that I think the electorate can >> understand.  "Mark all of the candidates you approve of, and the >> candidate with the highest approval rating wins"  I suspect that >> approval voting is better at rooting out corruption than RCV, and >> I have some more anecdotal evidence to back me up. >> >> St. Louis switched their mayoral elections to approval top-two.  >> The primary election selects the two candidates with the highest >> approval rating, and the general election decides between the >> last two. All eyes in the electoral reform community were on St. >> Louis, and St. Louis also elected their first Black woman to be >> their mayor: >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_St._Louis_mayoral_election >> >> If you've never been to St. Louis, I'll break it down for you.  >> The north part of town is the flood plain at the confluence of >> the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers.  It's where the poor people >> live, and many of them are Black.  South of Interstate 44 (which >> replaced "Route 66") is where one finds the rich people, where >> many houses were built for slaveowners (back in the day).  The >> St. Louis area has long been the fulcrum of race relations in >> this country.  For example, many folks know about the >> predominantly Black suburb Ferguson in the flight path of STL, >> also known as "Lombard".  Famous Nazi sympathizer and aviator >> Charles Lindbergh flew the "Spirit of St. Louis" when he made his >> first solo transcontinental flight in 1927. >> >> As an outsider who has mainly been through St. Louis (many >> times), and who has only stayed overnight in St. Louis a few >> nights, I only have a superficial understanding of the place.  >> But I watched the Wikipedia articles about the election with an >> eagle eye.  It would seem that Lewis Cass >> (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_E._Reed>) was the sore >> loser, and it appeared he was starting to lead an anti-approval >> campaign in St. Louis.  However, Reed (and a couple of his >> cronies on the Board of Aldermen) were caught on video accepting >> bribes from undercover FBI agents.  They're in prison now. >> >> I don't know much about Tishaura Jones, but all outside evidence >> suggests she's a good-government type who is cleaning up the >> politics of St. Louis.  I'm hopeful she gets re-elected in 2025, >> and that FairVote doesn't try to get approval voting replaced >> with RCV with the help of useful idiots that will take money in >> exchange for supporting the "correct" policies. >> >> But an electorate that has just enacted IRV in a referendum >> didn’t do so because they want to rank Lesser-Evil over their >> favorite. They enacted it because they want to rank >> sincerely, to express & fully help their favorite. >> >> Let’s support Oregon’s IRV (RCV) referendum next year! >> >> Though IRV doesn’t meet the Condorcet Criterion, it meets >> Mutual-Majority: >> >> IRV always elects the candidate of the largest faction of the >> Mutual-Majority.  …The favorite candidate of the Mutual-Majority. >> >> IRV didn’t “fail” in Burlington & Alaska. It did what it’s >> supposed to do. >> >> >> RCV elected the extreme candidates, rather than the compromise.  >> Sometimes, it elects the "good guy/gal" candidate (like Mary >> Peltola), but sometimes, it elects an incompetent candidate (like >> Bob Kiss), and it seems quite likely to me that Alaska will elect >> an extreme right-wing Republican candidate when Peltola runs for >> reelection in 2024.  Approval (and probably STAR) will elect >> candidates toward the center of public opinion, but RCV gets >> random when elections get close: >> https://electowiki.org/wiki/Yee_diagram >> >> Under approval and STAR, those of us who think of ourselves as >> "left-wing" are not as likely to get lucky every so often and get >> a minority candidate like Mary Peltola (who sadly wasn't quite >> able to appeal to the median voter in Alaska, it seems), but >> we're also not playing Russian roulette and potentially getting a >> right-wing reactionary that could be funded by foreign >> adversaries.  I've heard (from someone, I can't remember who) >> that one can see Russia from Alaska. :-) >> >> We don’t yet have a big Condorcet organization, or referenda, >> initiatives or strong lobbying for it, but let’s support the >> already ongoing enactment efforts for IRV, now named RCV. >> >> >> Let's not.  FairVote isn't that big (only $4.5MM/year in annual >> revenue, based on my cursory investigation).  The Center for >> Election Science pulls in over $1MM/year, and is looking for new >> executive director (or "CEO" as they say: >> https://electionscience.org/about/careers-and-board/ ), and I'm >> optimistic that they may just hire someone who is more >> sympathetic to Condorcet consistency than the prior executive >> director.  The Equal Vote Coaltion is a small scrappy startup, >> but seems to be using their money better than the prior two orgs >> (and seems far more amenable and adaptable to Internet feedback >> than either of the larger orgs).  Having helped a small-ish >> non-profit ($10MM/year in 2010 when I joined) become a larger >> organization ($60MM/year to $70MM/year or so these days, I >> think), I've learned not to get too enamored of (or intimidated >> by) "big non-profits". >> >> If Rob Richie can prove that he's not unethical, and come to the >> table with the rest of the electoral reform community, and debate >> openly and honestly, then maybe I'd consider teaming up with >> them.  Perhaps the FairVote Board can fire Richie, since he >> promised effective steps toward proportional representation, and >> hasn't achieved that after three decades.  He's only burned >> bridges and salted the earth for effective reform efforts through >> backroom dealing (e.g. what FairVote did in Seattle in 2022). >> >> As of right now, there's someone with the username "RRichie" that >> doesn't disclose their clear conflict-of-interest on English >> Wikipedia, but often makes very pro-RCV arguments (and >> pro-FairVote marketing) under that name: >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RRichie >> >> Rob >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 18:24 Forest Simmons >> <forest.simmons21@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> So called BTR-IRV, "Bottom Two Runoff IRV" goes along >> those lines. >> >> You probably remember "Benham" that runs IRV elimination >> until there remains a candidate undefeated by any of the >> other remaining candidates. >> >> This reminds me of basing the Sequential Pairwise >> Elimination agenda order on Top preferences ... by using >> those preferences to "de-clone" the Borda agenda order: >> >> The agenda order is given by SB(X), the Sum over all >> ballots B of the first place votes of the candidates >> ranked above X on B. >> >> The larger SB(X), the later X is (on average) in the >> rankings, and the rearlier X is in the elimination agenda. >> >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 20, 2023, 4:56 AM Michael Ossipoff >> <email9648742@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> If, using voted rankings, Sequential-Pairwise’s >> comparison-order is determined by giving, to the >> candidates with higher top-count score, a later >> position in the comparison-order, so that voters >> don’t know what the comparison-order will be… >> >> … >> >> …& if voters’ knowledge of eachother’s preferences is >> no better than it is now in political-elections… >> >> … >> >> …Does that Sequential-Pairwise election have an >> offensive strategy with gain-expectation comparable >> to what it would have in MinMax, RP & CSSD? >> >> …And, if so, is there a defensive strategy to thwart >> or deter that offensive strategy? >> >> …That seems of interest because Sequential-Pairwise >> is so much less computationally-demanding than the >> other pairwise-count methods. >> >> If, using voted rankings, Sequential-Pairwise’s >> comparison-order is determined by giving, to the >> candidates with higher top-count score, a later >> position in the comparison-order, so that voters >> don’t know what the comparison-order will be… >> >> … >> >> …& if voters’ knowledge of eachother’s preferences is >> no better than it is now in political-elections… >> >> … >> >> …Does that Sequential-Pairwise election have an >> offensive strategy with gain-expectation comparable >> to what it would have in MinMax, RP & CSSD? >> >> …And, if so, is there a defensive strategy to thwart >> or deter that offensive strategy? >> >> …That seems of interest because Sequential-Pairwise >> is so much less computationally-demanding than the >> other pairwise-count methods. >> >> ---- >> Election-Methods mailing list - see >> https://electorama.com/em for list info >> >> ---- >> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em >> for list info >> >> ---- >> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for >> list info >> >> >> ---- >> Election-Methods mailing list - seehttps://electorama.com/em for list info