It can be difficult to be sure what is "propose-able" in the US and what isn't (especially from outside of it.)   Sometimes relatively complicated things seem to catch on while no-one seems to be excited about Approval. I am not sure if  Margins Sorted Approval (specified) is "unproposably complex" or not. I suspect Smith//DAC might be, but I don't know. My three favourites with a big emphasis on simplicity and general "bang-for-buck" are: Smith//Approval (Ranking) Hare  (unrestricted and uncompelled strict ranking) Approval And my least preferred by those criteria include: STAR Approval with top-two manual Runoff Majority Judgement (and other Median Ratings methods) Chris > > *Kristofer Munsterhjelm*km_elmet at t-online.de > <mailto: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=%3C0f3688fb-e2c1-8618-f5fe-091cc3fc5cea%40t-online.de%3E> > /Fri Apr 12 16:05:24 PDT 2024/ > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > On 2024-04-12 22:37, Michael Ossipoff wrote: > >/Right!! That’s something I wanted to say. I’m removing Schulze from the />/upper part of my ranking for that reason, & replacing it with />/Smith//Approval(implicit). />//>/How about we say to rank in order of overall merit for public />/proposal…which includes proposability? />//>/Then the unproposably complex methods could be left unranked or ranked />/near bottom. />//>/Or take it a step further & trim the candidate-set to only include />/proposable methods? But might it be quicker to just let that be a voting />/judgment, instead of having to do that evaluation as a separate />/preliminary collective evaluation, which would delay the voting? / > I would prefer that the merit question for the poll stays the same: > "which voting methods do you prefer to which others?", i.e. ranking them > in preference. > > Then it would be up to the individual voter to consider what aspects of > the method are most important; and anyone who wants to use it to guide > reform can just screen away the unproposable methods. > > After all, we have to do that anyway, because it's pretty much > impossible to collapse disparate concerns into a single order without > making some assumptions about which concerns are most important. Would I > recommend Benham ahead of Schulze? Well, that depends on whether there's > tons of strategy in the place in question and whether they (and I) can > accept the nonmonotonicity. > > In the absence of any such situational information, any order will be > imperfect. In any case, if the poll's output ranking ends up being like > > Extrinsic Borda-Weighted Landau Intersection > Iterative Refinement > Keener + Sinkhorn (mean) > Schulze > RP > Approval > IRV, > > then it's a simple matter for reformers to just discard everything above > Schulze (or RP) for a public proposal. In practice, I doubt the exotic > methods will rank that high anyway. > > -km

On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 21:20 Chris Benham <cbenhamau@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > It can be difficult to be sure what is "propose-able" in the US and what > isn't (especially from outside > of it.) Sometimes relatively complicated things seem to catch on while > no-one seems to be excited > about Approval. > Relatively complicated things like what? The most complicated thing that’s been “catching on” IRV. I used quotes because I’ve heard that few understand it. Progressive political parties, & some progressives like it because FairVote’s if spending can buy a lot of success. It has nothing to do with merit or understandability. To catch on without FairVote’s humungous spending would require genuine understandability & simplicity. FairVote got IRV adopted in 2 states… in 35 years. :-D …not much to show f 35 years. If Approval enactment projects had started at the same time, with equal funding, or even a lot less, it would by now be in use in all 50 states. …& you mustn’t believe that EM’s complicated methods aren’t more complicated than IRV. :-) > > I am not sure if Margins Sorted Approval (specified) is "unproposably > complex" or not. > I assure you that it is. > I suspect Smith//DAC might be, but I don't know. > You’re right; it is. > > My three favourites with a big emphasis on simplicity and general > "bang-for-buck" are: > > Smith//Approval (Ranking) > > Hare (unrestricted and uncompelled strict ranking) > > Approval > 👍👍🏆🏆 Two excellent ones, out of three, isn’t bad at all. > > And my least preferred by those criteria include: > > STAR > > Approval with top-two manual Runoff > > Majority Judgement (and other Median Ratings methods) > I wouldn’t propose any of those. > > > Chris > > > > *Kristofer Munsterhjelm* km_elmet at t-online.de > <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=%3C0f3688fb-e2c1-8618-f5fe-091cc3fc5cea%40t-online.de%3E> > *Fri Apr 12 16:05:24 PDT 2024* > > > ------------------------------ > > On 2024-04-12 22:37, Michael Ossipoff wrote: > >* Right!! That’s something I wanted to say. I’m removing Schulze from the > *>* upper part of my ranking for that reason, & replacing it with > *>* Smith//Approval(implicit). > *> >* How about we say to rank in order of overall merit for public > *>* proposal…which includes proposability? > *> >* Then the unproposably complex methods could be left unranked or ranked > *>* near bottom. > *> >* Or take it a step further & trim the candidate-set to only include > *>* proposable methods? But might it be quicker to just let that be a voting > *>* judgment, instead of having to do that evaluation as a separate > *>* preliminary collective evaluation, which would delay the voting? > * > I would prefer that the merit question for the poll stays the same: > "which voting methods do you prefer to which others?", i.e. ranking them > in preference. > > Then it would be up to the individual voter to consider what aspects of > the method are most important; and anyone who wants to use it to guide > reform can just screen away the unproposable methods. > > After all, we have to do that anyway, because it's pretty much > impossible to collapse disparate concerns into a single order without > making some assumptions about which concerns are most important. Would I > recommend Benham ahead of Schulze? Well, that depends on whether there's > tons of strategy in the place in question and whether they (and I) can > accept the nonmonotonicity. > > In the absence of any such situational information, any order will be > imperfect. In any case, if the poll's output ranking ends up being like > > Extrinsic Borda-Weighted Landau Intersection > Iterative Refinement > Keener + Sinkhorn (mean) > Schulze > RP > Approval > IRV, > > then it's a simple matter for reformers to just discard everything above > Schulze (or RP) for a public proposal. In practice, I doubt the exotic > methods will rank that high anyway. > > -km > > >

>> If Approval enactment projects had started at the same time, with equal funding, or even a lot less, it would by now be in use in all 50 states. >> Electoral reform here is just starting its 2nd try (the 1st was early 20th-century). If it ever starts to take-off, there will probably be bipartisanfederal laws to forbid it in any form anywhere. Which is it? You can’t have it both ways. 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 13, 2024 at 8:20 AM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 21:20 Chris Benham <cbenhamau@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > >> >> It can be difficult to be sure what is "propose-able" in the US and what >> isn't (especially from outside >> of it.) Sometimes relatively complicated things seem to catch on while >> no-one seems to be excited >> about Approval. >> > Relatively complicated things like what? The most complicated thing that’s > been “catching on” IRV. I used quotes because I’ve heard that few > understand it. Progressive political parties, & some progressives like it > because FairVote’s if spending can buy a lot of success. It has nothing to > do with merit or understandability. > > To catch on without FairVote’s humungous spending would require genuine > understandability & simplicity. FairVote got IRV adopted in 2 states… in 35 > years. > > :-D …not much to show f 35 years. > > If Approval enactment projects had started at the same time, with equal > funding, or even a lot less, it would by now be in use in all 50 states. > > …& you mustn’t believe that EM’s complicated methods aren’t more > complicated than IRV. :-) > > > >> >> I am not sure if Margins Sorted Approval (specified) is "unproposably >> complex" or not. >> > I assure you that it is. > > >> I suspect Smith//DAC might be, but I don't know. >> > You’re right; it is. > > >> >> My three favourites with a big emphasis on simplicity and general >> "bang-for-buck" are: >> >> Smith//Approval (Ranking) >> >> Hare (unrestricted and uncompelled strict ranking) >> >> Approval >> > > 👍👍🏆🏆 > > Two excellent ones, out of three, isn’t bad at all. > > >> >> And my least preferred by those criteria include: >> >> STAR >> >> Approval with top-two manual Runoff >> >> Majority Judgement (and other Median Ratings methods) >> > I wouldn’t propose any of those. > >> >> >> Chris >> >> >> >> *Kristofer Munsterhjelm* km_elmet at t-online.de >> <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=%3C0f3688fb-e2c1-8618-f5fe-091cc3fc5cea%40t-online.de%3E> >> *Fri Apr 12 16:05:24 PDT 2024* >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> On 2024-04-12 22:37, Michael Ossipoff wrote: >> >* Right!! That’s something I wanted to say. I’m removing Schulze from the >> *>* upper part of my ranking for that reason, & replacing it with >> *>* Smith//Approval(implicit). >> *> >* How about we say to rank in order of overall merit for public >> *>* proposal…which includes proposability? >> *> >* Then the unproposably complex methods could be left unranked or ranked >> *>* near bottom. >> *> >* Or take it a step further & trim the candidate-set to only include >> *>* proposable methods? But might it be quicker to just let that be a voting >> *>* judgment, instead of having to do that evaluation as a separate >> *>* preliminary collective evaluation, which would delay the voting? >> * >> I would prefer that the merit question for the poll stays the same: >> "which voting methods do you prefer to which others?", i.e. ranking them >> in preference. >> >> Then it would be up to the individual voter to consider what aspects of >> the method are most important; and anyone who wants to use it to guide >> reform can just screen away the unproposable methods. >> >> After all, we have to do that anyway, because it's pretty much >> impossible to collapse disparate concerns into a single order without >> making some assumptions about which concerns are most important. Would I >> recommend Benham ahead of Schulze? Well, that depends on whether there's >> tons of strategy in the place in question and whether they (and I) can >> accept the nonmonotonicity. >> >> In the absence of any such situational information, any order will be >> imperfect. In any case, if the poll's output ranking ends up being like >> >> Extrinsic Borda-Weighted Landau Intersection > Iterative Refinement >> Keener + Sinkhorn (mean) > Schulze > RP > Approval > IRV, >> >> then it's a simple matter for reformers to just discard everything above >> Schulze (or RP) for a public proposal. In practice, I doubt the exotic >> methods will rank that high anyway. >> >> -km >> >> >> ---- > Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list > info >

On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 00:22 Michael Garman <michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote: > >> If Approval enactment projects had started at the same time, with > equal funding, or even a lot less, it would by now be in use in all 50 > states. > > >> Electoral reform here is just starting its 2nd try (the 1st was early > 20th-century). If it ever starts to take-off, there will probably be > bipartisanfederal laws to forbid it in any form anywhere. > > Which is it? You can’t have it both ways. > It isn’t one way. It’s both ways. Approval would have had much easier, less expensive & faster nationwide enactment. It would take-off bigger than IRV has, & in a lot less time. (…but yes, then *that* degree of success happens, that’s when the outlawing is likely.) When electoral-reform is taking-off (2 states is just a slow insignificant beginning), there will likely be a bipartisan law outlawing all effective genuine electoral-reform m. > > > 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 13, 2024 at 8:20 AM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 21:20 Chris Benham <cbenhamau@yahoo.com.au> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> It can be difficult to be sure what is "propose-able" in the US and what >>> isn't (especially from outside >>> of it.) Sometimes relatively complicated things seem to catch on while >>> no-one seems to be excited >>> about Approval. >>> >> Relatively complicated things like what? The most complicated thing >> that’s been “catching on” IRV. I used quotes because I’ve heard that few >> understand it. Progressive political parties, & some progressives like it >> because FairVote’s if spending can buy a lot of success. It has nothing to >> do with merit or understandability. >> >> To catch on without FairVote’s humungous spending would require genuine >> understandability & simplicity. FairVote got IRV adopted in 2 states… in 35 >> years. >> >> :-D …not much to show f 35 years. >> >> If Approval enactment projects had started at the same time, with equal >> funding, or even a lot less, it would by now be in use in all 50 states. >> >> …& you mustn’t believe that EM’s complicated methods aren’t more >> complicated than IRV. :-) >> >> >> >>> >>> I am not sure if Margins Sorted Approval (specified) is "unproposably >>> complex" or not. >>> >> I assure you that it is. >> >> >>> I suspect Smith//DAC might be, but I don't know. >>> >> You’re right; it is. >> >> >>> >>> My three favourites with a big emphasis on simplicity and general >>> "bang-for-buck" are: >>> >>> Smith//Approval (Ranking) >>> >>> Hare (unrestricted and uncompelled strict ranking) >>> >>> Approval >>> >> >> 👍👍🏆🏆 >> >> Two excellent ones, out of three, isn’t bad at all. >> >> >>> >>> And my least preferred by those criteria include: >>> >>> STAR >>> >>> Approval with top-two manual Runoff >>> >>> Majority Judgement (and other Median Ratings methods) >>> >> I wouldn’t propose any of those. >> >>> >>> >>> Chris >>> >>> >>> >>> *Kristofer Munsterhjelm* km_elmet at t-online.de >>> <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=%3C0f3688fb-e2c1-8618-f5fe-091cc3fc5cea%40t-online.de%3E> >>> *Fri Apr 12 16:05:24 PDT 2024* >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> On 2024-04-12 22:37, Michael Ossipoff wrote: >>> >* Right!! That’s something I wanted to say. I’m removing Schulze from the >>> *>* upper part of my ranking for that reason, & replacing it with >>> *>* Smith//Approval(implicit). >>> *> >* How about we say to rank in order of overall merit for public >>> *>* proposal…which includes proposability? >>> *> >* Then the unproposably complex methods could be left unranked or ranked >>> *>* near bottom. >>> *> >* Or take it a step further & trim the candidate-set to only include >>> *>* proposable methods? But might it be quicker to just let that be a voting >>> *>* judgment, instead of having to do that evaluation as a separate >>> *>* preliminary collective evaluation, which would delay the voting? >>> * >>> I would prefer that the merit question for the poll stays the same: >>> "which voting methods do you prefer to which others?", i.e. ranking them >>> in preference. >>> >>> Then it would be up to the individual voter to consider what aspects of >>> the method are most important; and anyone who wants to use it to guide >>> reform can just screen away the unproposable methods. >>> >>> After all, we have to do that anyway, because it's pretty much >>> impossible to collapse disparate concerns into a single order without >>> making some assumptions about which concerns are most important. Would I >>> recommend Benham ahead of Schulze? Well, that depends on whether there's >>> tons of strategy in the place in question and whether they (and I) can >>> accept the nonmonotonicity. >>> >>> In the absence of any such situational information, any order will be >>> imperfect. In any case, if the poll's output ranking ends up being like >>> >>> Extrinsic Borda-Weighted Landau Intersection > Iterative Refinement >>> Keener + Sinkhorn (mean) > Schulze > RP > Approval > IRV, >>> >>> then it's a simple matter for reformers to just discard everything above >>> Schulze (or RP) for a public proposal. In practice, I doubt the exotic >>> methods will rank that high anyway. >>> >>> -km >>> >>> >>> ---- >> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list >> info >> >

Would it be in use, or would it be banned? Can’t be both! :-D On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 11:57 AM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 00:22 Michael Garman < > michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote: > >> >> If Approval enactment projects had started at the same time, with >> equal funding, or even a lot less, it would by now be in use in all 50 >> states. >> >> >> Electoral reform here is just starting its 2nd try (the 1st was early >> 20th-century). If it ever starts to take-off, there will probably be >> bipartisanfederal laws to forbid it in any form anywhere. >> >> Which is it? You can’t have it both ways. >> > > It isn’t one way. It’s both ways. > > Approval would have had much easier, less expensive & faster nationwide > enactment. It would take-off bigger than IRV has, & in a lot less time. > > (…but yes, then *that* degree of success happens, that’s when the > outlawing is likely.) > > When electoral-reform is taking-off (2 states is just a slow insignificant > beginning), there will likely be a bipartisan law outlawing all effective > genuine electoral-reform m. > >> >> >> 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 13, 2024 at 8:20 AM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 21:20 Chris Benham <cbenhamau@yahoo.com.au> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> It can be difficult to be sure what is "propose-able" in the US and >>>> what isn't (especially from outside >>>> of it.) Sometimes relatively complicated things seem to catch on >>>> while no-one seems to be excited >>>> about Approval. >>>> >>> Relatively complicated things like what? The most complicated thing >>> that’s been “catching on” IRV. I used quotes because I’ve heard that few >>> understand it. Progressive political parties, & some progressives like it >>> because FairVote’s if spending can buy a lot of success. It has nothing to >>> do with merit or understandability. >>> >>> To catch on without FairVote’s humungous spending would require genuine >>> understandability & simplicity. FairVote got IRV adopted in 2 states… in 35 >>> years. >>> >>> :-D …not much to show f 35 years. >>> >>> If Approval enactment projects had started at the same time, with equal >>> funding, or even a lot less, it would by now be in use in all 50 states. >>> >>> …& you mustn’t believe that EM’s complicated methods aren’t more >>> complicated than IRV. :-) >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> I am not sure if Margins Sorted Approval (specified) is "unproposably >>>> complex" or not. >>>> >>> I assure you that it is. >>> >>> >>>> I suspect Smith//DAC might be, but I don't know. >>>> >>> You’re right; it is. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> My three favourites with a big emphasis on simplicity and general >>>> "bang-for-buck" are: >>>> >>>> Smith//Approval (Ranking) >>>> >>>> Hare (unrestricted and uncompelled strict ranking) >>>> >>>> Approval >>>> >>> >>> 👍👍🏆🏆 >>> >>> Two excellent ones, out of three, isn’t bad at all. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> And my least preferred by those criteria include: >>>> >>>> STAR >>>> >>>> Approval with top-two manual Runoff >>>> >>>> Majority Judgement (and other Median Ratings methods) >>>> >>> I wouldn’t propose any of those. >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Chris >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *Kristofer Munsterhjelm* km_elmet at t-online.de >>>> <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=%3C0f3688fb-e2c1-8618-f5fe-091cc3fc5cea%40t-online.de%3E> >>>> *Fri Apr 12 16:05:24 PDT 2024* >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> On 2024-04-12 22:37, Michael Ossipoff wrote: >>>> >* Right!! That’s something I wanted to say. I’m removing Schulze from the >>>> *>* upper part of my ranking for that reason, & replacing it with >>>> *>* Smith//Approval(implicit). >>>> *> >* How about we say to rank in order of overall merit for public >>>> *>* proposal…which includes proposability? >>>> *> >* Then the unproposably complex methods could be left unranked or ranked >>>> *>* near bottom. >>>> *> >* Or take it a step further & trim the candidate-set to only include >>>> *>* proposable methods? But might it be quicker to just let that be a voting >>>> *>* judgment, instead of having to do that evaluation as a separate >>>> *>* preliminary collective evaluation, which would delay the voting? >>>> * >>>> I would prefer that the merit question for the poll stays the same: >>>> "which voting methods do you prefer to which others?", i.e. ranking them >>>> in preference. >>>> >>>> Then it would be up to the individual voter to consider what aspects of >>>> the method are most important; and anyone who wants to use it to guide >>>> reform can just screen away the unproposable methods. >>>> >>>> After all, we have to do that anyway, because it's pretty much >>>> impossible to collapse disparate concerns into a single order without >>>> making some assumptions about which concerns are most important. Would I >>>> recommend Benham ahead of Schulze? Well, that depends on whether there's >>>> tons of strategy in the place in question and whether they (and I) can >>>> accept the nonmonotonicity. >>>> >>>> In the absence of any such situational information, any order will be >>>> imperfect. In any case, if the poll's output ranking ends up being like >>>> >>>> Extrinsic Borda-Weighted Landau Intersection > Iterative Refinement >>>> Keener + Sinkhorn (mean) > Schulze > RP > Approval > IRV, >>>> >>>> then it's a simple matter for reformers to just discard everything above >>>> Schulze (or RP) for a public proposal. In practice, I doubt the exotic >>>> methods will rank that high anyway. >>>> >>>> -km >>>> >>>> >>>> ---- >>> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list >>> info >>> >>

On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 03:04 Michael Garman <michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote: > Would it be in use, or would it be banned? Can’t be both! :-D > I said that it *likely* will be banned. …after it causes concern by achieving significant success. If so, it *would* be both: First succeeding bigtime, & then banned as a result. That will have to do, because I’m not going to again explain what I meant. > > > On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 11:57 AM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 00:22 Michael Garman < >> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote: >> >>> >> If Approval enactment projects had started at the same time, with >>> equal funding, or even a lot less, it would by now be in use in all 50 >>> states. >>> >>> >> Electoral reform here is just starting its 2nd try (the 1st was >>> early 20th-century). If it ever starts to take-off, there will probably be >>> bipartisanfederal laws to forbid it in any form anywhere. >>> >>> Which is it? You can’t have it both ways. >>> >> >> It isn’t one way. It’s both ways. >> >> Approval would have had much easier, less expensive & faster nationwide >> enactment. It would take-off bigger than IRV has, & in a lot less time. >> >> (…but yes, then *that* degree of success happens, that’s when the >> outlawing is likely.) >> >> When electoral-reform is taking-off (2 states is just a slow >> insignificant beginning), there will likely be a bipartisan law outlawing >> all effective genuine electoral-reform m. >> >>> >>> >>> 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 13, 2024 at 8:20 AM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 21:20 Chris Benham <cbenhamau@yahoo.com.au> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> It can be difficult to be sure what is "propose-able" in the US and >>>>> what isn't (especially from outside >>>>> of it.) Sometimes relatively complicated things seem to catch on >>>>> while no-one seems to be excited >>>>> about Approval. >>>>> >>>> Relatively complicated things like what? The most complicated thing >>>> that’s been “catching on” IRV. I used quotes because I’ve heard that few >>>> understand it. Progressive political parties, & some progressives like it >>>> because FairVote’s if spending can buy a lot of success. It has nothing to >>>> do with merit or understandability. >>>> >>>> To catch on without FairVote’s humungous spending would require genuine >>>> understandability & simplicity. FairVote got IRV adopted in 2 states… in 35 >>>> years. >>>> >>>> :-D …not much to show f 35 years. >>>> >>>> If Approval enactment projects had started at the same time, with equal >>>> funding, or even a lot less, it would by now be in use in all 50 states. >>>> >>>> …& you mustn’t believe that EM’s complicated methods aren’t more >>>> complicated than IRV. :-) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I am not sure if Margins Sorted Approval (specified) is "unproposably >>>>> complex" or not. >>>>> >>>> I assure you that it is. >>>> >>>> >>>>> I suspect Smith//DAC might be, but I don't know. >>>>> >>>> You’re right; it is. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> My three favourites with a big emphasis on simplicity and general >>>>> "bang-for-buck" are: >>>>> >>>>> Smith//Approval (Ranking) >>>>> >>>>> Hare (unrestricted and uncompelled strict ranking) >>>>> >>>>> Approval >>>>> >>>> >>>> 👍👍🏆🏆 >>>> >>>> Two excellent ones, out of three, isn’t bad at all. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> And my least preferred by those criteria include: >>>>> >>>>> STAR >>>>> >>>>> Approval with top-two manual Runoff >>>>> >>>>> Majority Judgement (and other Median Ratings methods) >>>>> >>>> I wouldn’t propose any of those. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Chris >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Kristofer Munsterhjelm* km_elmet at t-online.de >>>>> <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=%3C0f3688fb-e2c1-8618-f5fe-091cc3fc5cea%40t-online.de%3E> >>>>> *Fri Apr 12 16:05:24 PDT 2024* >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> On 2024-04-12 22:37, Michael Ossipoff wrote: >>>>> >* Right!! That’s something I wanted to say. I’m removing Schulze from the >>>>> *>* upper part of my ranking for that reason, & replacing it with >>>>> *>* Smith//Approval(implicit). >>>>> *> >* How about we say to rank in order of overall merit for public >>>>> *>* proposal…which includes proposability? >>>>> *> >* Then the unproposably complex methods could be left unranked or ranked >>>>> *>* near bottom. >>>>> *> >* Or take it a step further & trim the candidate-set to only include >>>>> *>* proposable methods? But might it be quicker to just let that be a voting >>>>> *>* judgment, instead of having to do that evaluation as a separate >>>>> *>* preliminary collective evaluation, which would delay the voting? >>>>> * >>>>> I would prefer that the merit question for the poll stays the same: >>>>> "which voting methods do you prefer to which others?", i.e. ranking them >>>>> in preference. >>>>> >>>>> Then it would be up to the individual voter to consider what aspects of >>>>> the method are most important; and anyone who wants to use it to guide >>>>> reform can just screen away the unproposable methods. >>>>> >>>>> After all, we have to do that anyway, because it's pretty much >>>>> impossible to collapse disparate concerns into a single order without >>>>> making some assumptions about which concerns are most important. Would I >>>>> recommend Benham ahead of Schulze? Well, that depends on whether there's >>>>> tons of strategy in the place in question and whether they (and I) can >>>>> accept the nonmonotonicity. >>>>> >>>>> In the absence of any such situational information, any order will be >>>>> imperfect. In any case, if the poll's output ranking ends up being like >>>>> >>>>> Extrinsic Borda-Weighted Landau Intersection > Iterative Refinement >>>>> Keener + Sinkhorn (mean) > Schulze > RP > Approval > IRV, >>>>> >>>>> then it's a simple matter for reformers to just discard everything above >>>>> Schulze (or RP) for a public proposal. In practice, I doubt the exotic >>>>> methods will rank that high anyway. >>>>> >>>>> -km >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ---- >>>> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list >>>> info >>>> >>>

Who’s going to ban it? The two-party establishment? What does it say about STAR that in your vision they’ll still be around and powerful enough to ban it? On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 7:39 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 03:04 Michael Garman < > michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote: > >> Would it be in use, or would it be banned? Can’t be both! :-D >> > > I said that it *likely* will be banned. > > …after it causes concern by achieving significant success. > > If so, it *would* be both: First succeeding bigtime, & then banned as a > result. > > That will have to do, because I’m not going to again explain what I meant. > >> >> >> On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 11:57 AM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 00:22 Michael Garman < >>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote: >>> >>>> >> If Approval enactment projects had started at the same time, with >>>> equal funding, or even a lot less, it would by now be in use in all 50 >>>> states. >>>> >>>> >> Electoral reform here is just starting its 2nd try (the 1st was >>>> early 20th-century). If it ever starts to take-off, there will probably be >>>> bipartisanfederal laws to forbid it in any form anywhere. >>>> >>>> Which is it? You can’t have it both ways. >>>> >>> >>> It isn’t one way. It’s both ways. >>> >>> Approval would have had much easier, less expensive & faster nationwide >>> enactment. It would take-off bigger than IRV has, & in a lot less time. >>> >>> (…but yes, then *that* degree of success happens, that’s when the >>> outlawing is likely.) >>> >>> When electoral-reform is taking-off (2 states is just a slow >>> insignificant beginning), there will likely be a bipartisan law outlawing >>> all effective genuine electoral-reform m. >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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 13, 2024 at 8:20 AM Michael Ossipoff < >>>> email9648742@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 21:20 Chris Benham <cbenhamau@yahoo.com.au> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It can be difficult to be sure what is "propose-able" in the US and >>>>>> what isn't (especially from outside >>>>>> of it.) Sometimes relatively complicated things seem to catch on >>>>>> while no-one seems to be excited >>>>>> about Approval. >>>>>> >>>>> Relatively complicated things like what? The most complicated thing >>>>> that’s been “catching on” IRV. I used quotes because I’ve heard that few >>>>> understand it. Progressive political parties, & some progressives like it >>>>> because FairVote’s if spending can buy a lot of success. It has nothing to >>>>> do with merit or understandability. >>>>> >>>>> To catch on without FairVote’s humungous spending would require >>>>> genuine understandability & simplicity. FairVote got IRV adopted in 2 >>>>> states… in 35 years. >>>>> >>>>> :-D …not much to show f 35 years. >>>>> >>>>> If Approval enactment projects had started at the same time, with >>>>> equal funding, or even a lot less, it would by now be in use in all 50 >>>>> states. >>>>> >>>>> …& you mustn’t believe that EM’s complicated methods aren’t more >>>>> complicated than IRV. :-) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I am not sure if Margins Sorted Approval (specified) is >>>>>> "unproposably complex" or not. >>>>>> >>>>> I assure you that it is. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I suspect Smith//DAC might be, but I don't know. >>>>>> >>>>> You’re right; it is. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> My three favourites with a big emphasis on simplicity and general >>>>>> "bang-for-buck" are: >>>>>> >>>>>> Smith//Approval (Ranking) >>>>>> >>>>>> Hare (unrestricted and uncompelled strict ranking) >>>>>> >>>>>> Approval >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 👍👍🏆🏆 >>>>> >>>>> Two excellent ones, out of three, isn’t bad at all. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> And my least preferred by those criteria include: >>>>>> >>>>>> STAR >>>>>> >>>>>> Approval with top-two manual Runoff >>>>>> >>>>>> Majority Judgement (and other Median Ratings methods) >>>>>> >>>>> I wouldn’t propose any of those. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Chris >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *Kristofer Munsterhjelm* km_elmet at t-online.de >>>>>> <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=%3C0f3688fb-e2c1-8618-f5fe-091cc3fc5cea%40t-online.de%3E> >>>>>> *Fri Apr 12 16:05:24 PDT 2024* >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2024-04-12 22:37, Michael Ossipoff wrote: >>>>>> >* Right!! That’s something I wanted to say. I’m removing Schulze from the >>>>>> *>* upper part of my ranking for that reason, & replacing it with >>>>>> *>* Smith//Approval(implicit). >>>>>> *> >* How about we say to rank in order of overall merit for public >>>>>> *>* proposal…which includes proposability? >>>>>> *> >* Then the unproposably complex methods could be left unranked or ranked >>>>>> *>* near bottom. >>>>>> *> >* Or take it a step further & trim the candidate-set to only include >>>>>> *>* proposable methods? But might it be quicker to just let that be a voting >>>>>> *>* judgment, instead of having to do that evaluation as a separate >>>>>> *>* preliminary collective evaluation, which would delay the voting? >>>>>> * >>>>>> I would prefer that the merit question for the poll stays the same: >>>>>> "which voting methods do you prefer to which others?", i.e. ranking them >>>>>> in preference. >>>>>> >>>>>> Then it would be up to the individual voter to consider what aspects of >>>>>> the method are most important; and anyone who wants to use it to guide >>>>>> reform can just screen away the unproposable methods. >>>>>> >>>>>> After all, we have to do that anyway, because it's pretty much >>>>>> impossible to collapse disparate concerns into a single order without >>>>>> making some assumptions about which concerns are most important. Would I >>>>>> recommend Benham ahead of Schulze? Well, that depends on whether there's >>>>>> tons of strategy in the place in question and whether they (and I) can >>>>>> accept the nonmonotonicity. >>>>>> >>>>>> In the absence of any such situational information, any order will be >>>>>> imperfect. In any case, if the poll's output ranking ends up being like >>>>>> >>>>>> Extrinsic Borda-Weighted Landau Intersection > Iterative Refinement >>>>>> Keener + Sinkhorn (mean) > Schulze > RP > Approval > IRV, >>>>>> >>>>>> then it's a simple matter for reformers to just discard everything above >>>>>> Schulze (or RP) for a public proposal. In practice, I doubt the exotic >>>>>> methods will rank that high anyway. >>>>>> >>>>>> -km >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ---- >>>>> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for >>>>> list info >>>>> >>>>

Approval, not STAR. My mistake. On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 7:40 PM Michael Garman < michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote: > Who’s going to ban it? The two-party establishment? What does it say about > STAR that in your vision they’ll still be around and powerful enough to ban > it? > > On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 7:39 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 03:04 Michael Garman < >> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote: >> >>> Would it be in use, or would it be banned? Can’t be both! :-D >>> >> >> I said that it *likely* will be banned. >> >> …after it causes concern by achieving significant success. >> >> If so, it *would* be both: First succeeding bigtime, & then banned as a >> result. >> >> That will have to do, because I’m not going to again explain what I meant. >> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 11:57 AM Michael Ossipoff < >>> email9648742@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 00:22 Michael Garman < >>>> michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >> If Approval enactment projects had started at the same time, with >>>>> equal funding, or even a lot less, it would by now be in use in all 50 >>>>> states. >>>>> >>>>> >> Electoral reform here is just starting its 2nd try (the 1st was >>>>> early 20th-century). If it ever starts to take-off, there will probably be >>>>> bipartisanfederal laws to forbid it in any form anywhere. >>>>> >>>>> Which is it? You can’t have it both ways. >>>>> >>>> >>>> It isn’t one way. It’s both ways. >>>> >>>> Approval would have had much easier, less expensive & faster >>>> nationwide enactment. It would take-off bigger than IRV has, & in a lot >>>> less time. >>>> >>>> (…but yes, then *that* degree of success happens, that’s when the >>>> outlawing is likely.) >>>> >>>> When electoral-reform is taking-off (2 states is just a slow >>>> insignificant beginning), there will likely be a bipartisan law outlawing >>>> all effective genuine electoral-reform m. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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 13, 2024 at 8:20 AM Michael Ossipoff < >>>>> email9648742@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 21:20 Chris Benham <cbenhamau@yahoo.com.au> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It can be difficult to be sure what is "propose-able" in the US and >>>>>>> what isn't (especially from outside >>>>>>> of it.) Sometimes relatively complicated things seem to catch on >>>>>>> while no-one seems to be excited >>>>>>> about Approval. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Relatively complicated things like what? The most complicated thing >>>>>> that’s been “catching on” IRV. I used quotes because I’ve heard that few >>>>>> understand it. Progressive political parties, & some progressives like it >>>>>> because FairVote’s if spending can buy a lot of success. It has nothing to >>>>>> do with merit or understandability. >>>>>> >>>>>> To catch on without FairVote’s humungous spending would require >>>>>> genuine understandability & simplicity. FairVote got IRV adopted in 2 >>>>>> states… in 35 years. >>>>>> >>>>>> :-D …not much to show f 35 years. >>>>>> >>>>>> If Approval enactment projects had started at the same time, with >>>>>> equal funding, or even a lot less, it would by now be in use in all 50 >>>>>> states. >>>>>> >>>>>> …& you mustn’t believe that EM’s complicated methods aren’t more >>>>>> complicated than IRV. :-) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am not sure if Margins Sorted Approval (specified) is >>>>>>> "unproposably complex" or not. >>>>>>> >>>>>> I assure you that it is. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> I suspect Smith//DAC might be, but I don't know. >>>>>>> >>>>>> You’re right; it is. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My three favourites with a big emphasis on simplicity and general >>>>>>> "bang-for-buck" are: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Smith//Approval (Ranking) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hare (unrestricted and uncompelled strict ranking) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Approval >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 👍👍🏆🏆 >>>>>> >>>>>> Two excellent ones, out of three, isn’t bad at all. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And my least preferred by those criteria include: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> STAR >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Approval with top-two manual Runoff >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Majority Judgement (and other Median Ratings methods) >>>>>>> >>>>>> I wouldn’t propose any of those. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Chris >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Kristofer Munsterhjelm* km_elmet at t-online.de >>>>>>> <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=%3C0f3688fb-e2c1-8618-f5fe-091cc3fc5cea%40t-online.de%3E> >>>>>>> *Fri Apr 12 16:05:24 PDT 2024* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2024-04-12 22:37, Michael Ossipoff wrote: >>>>>>> >* Right!! That’s something I wanted to say. I’m removing Schulze from the >>>>>>> *>* upper part of my ranking for that reason, & replacing it with >>>>>>> *>* Smith//Approval(implicit). >>>>>>> *> >* How about we say to rank in order of overall merit for public >>>>>>> *>* proposal…which includes proposability? >>>>>>> *> >* Then the unproposably complex methods could be left unranked or ranked >>>>>>> *>* near bottom. >>>>>>> *> >* Or take it a step further & trim the candidate-set to only include >>>>>>> *>* proposable methods? But might it be quicker to just let that be a voting >>>>>>> *>* judgment, instead of having to do that evaluation as a separate >>>>>>> *>* preliminary collective evaluation, which would delay the voting? >>>>>>> * >>>>>>> I would prefer that the merit question for the poll stays the same: >>>>>>> "which voting methods do you prefer to which others?", i.e. ranking them >>>>>>> in preference. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Then it would be up to the individual voter to consider what aspects of >>>>>>> the method are most important; and anyone who wants to use it to guide >>>>>>> reform can just screen away the unproposable methods. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> After all, we have to do that anyway, because it's pretty much >>>>>>> impossible to collapse disparate concerns into a single order without >>>>>>> making some assumptions about which concerns are most important. Would I >>>>>>> recommend Benham ahead of Schulze? Well, that depends on whether there's >>>>>>> tons of strategy in the place in question and whether they (and I) can >>>>>>> accept the nonmonotonicity. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In the absence of any such situational information, any order will be >>>>>>> imperfect. In any case, if the poll's output ranking ends up being like >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Extrinsic Borda-Weighted Landau Intersection > Iterative Refinement >>>>>>> Keener + Sinkhorn (mean) > Schulze > RP > Approval > IRV, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> then it's a simple matter for reformers to just discard everything above >>>>>>> Schulze (or RP) for a public proposal. In practice, I doubt the exotic >>>>>>> methods will rank that high anyway. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -km >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ---- >>>>>> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for >>>>>> list info >>>>>> >>>>>