Part 3 of Approval vs Condorcet
Part 3:
…
Part 2 didn’t send. I wrote it on my phone, & it failed to send. Hopefully
a copy will be returned to me, so that I can try again to send it. But I’m
writing this Part 3 on the desk-computer, so that I can save it in Word, so
that, whatever happens with unsuccessful sending, I’ll have it to resend.
…
Approval-Advantages continued:
…
Let’s talk about enactment:
…
The incomparably easier implementation makes Approval much more enactable.
Let me say more about easy implantation: Approval can be implemented with
no new balloting-equipment, & also without even any software-modifications.
Here’s a way:
…
The existing Plurality-count software is designed for collecting a single
vote in a race. So tell the count-program that there are many 2-way races
(one for each candidate). The ballot has a line for each candidate’s name &
voting-bubble. But, alternating with those lines, are blank lines, where
the count-program expects votes for the nonexistent other candidate in the
fictitious 2-way race.
…
So, when the counting is done, the count-program will report the results
for all those fictitious 2-way races, including 0 for each of the
vote-totals for the nonexistent opponents, & also the vote-totals for each
actual candidate.
…
In that way, the existing Plurality count-software will give the totals for
each actual candidate, summed over all the ballots.
…
So that’s why I said that Approval can be implemented at zero cost. No
software modification needed.
…
Now, what does FairVote (under various names) have to show for its 35 years
of expensively promoting IRV (under various names)? Two states & some
cities.
…
Two states.
…
Sorry, but I don’t call that success. Sure, if the people of Oregon &
Nevada have been well-enough deceived, there could be two more states this
year. But 4 out of 50 sounds more like failure for a 35-year effort.
…
If Approval had been the proposal over that period, it would be in use in
all 50 states by now.
…
Critreria:
…
Just as an added bonus:
…
Approval passes several criteria that Condorcet fails:
…
Participation, Consistency, & IIAC (all without loss of Pareto).
…
I don’t include FBC, because Condorcet’s FBC-failure that we discussed at
EM a long time ago is so rare as to be strategically-irrelevant.
…
If burial is a problem, then FBC-failure comes back when we need
favorite-burying drastic defenses to try to protect CW from burial. But the
wv Condorcet-versions are so burial-deterrent, in 2 separate ways
(Minimal-Defense & autodeterrence*), that burial can be ignored when voting.
…
*Even without any defensive-truncation, burial’s backfire is 10 times more
likely than its success.
…
[Conclusion of this short Part 3]
…
If Part 2 hasn’t been sent yet, & doesn’t automatically get sent, hopefully
a copy will be returned to me, & I’ll then send it along.
…
I have to say that, from now on, anything long will be written in word on
the desktop computer instead of on the phone, for safekeeping of long
messages in case they fail to send & are lost.
If Approval had been the proposal over that period, it would be in use
in all 50 states by now.
I find it incredibly hard to believe that there wouldn’t be a partisan
backlash the first time approval cost one or the other — or both — the
election. The major parties famously love giving third parties a fair shot.
Not denying that it’s a fine system that ought to be used in more places
than it currently is, but this claim is absurd.
On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 8:07 AM Michael Ossipoff email9648742@gmail.com
wrote:
Part 3:
…
Part 2 didn’t send. I wrote it on my phone, & it failed to send. Hopefully
a copy will be returned to me, so that I can try again to send it. But I’m
writing this Part 3 on the desk-computer, so that I can save it in Word, so
that, whatever happens with unsuccessful sending, I’ll have it to resend.
…
Approval-Advantages continued:
…
Let’s talk about enactment:
…
The incomparably easier implementation makes Approval much more enactable.
Let me say more about easy implantation: Approval can be implemented with
no new balloting-equipment, & also without even any software-modifications.
Here’s a way:
…
The existing Plurality-count software is designed for collecting a
single vote in a race. So tell the count-program that there are many 2-way
races (one for each candidate). The ballot has a line for each candidate’s
name & voting-bubble. But, alternating with those lines, are blank lines,
where the count-program expects votes for the nonexistent other candidate
in the fictitious 2-way race.
…
So, when the counting is done, the count-program will report the results
for all those fictitious 2-way races, including 0 for each of the
vote-totals for the nonexistent opponents, & also the vote-totals for each
actual candidate.
…
In that way, the existing Plurality count-software will give the totals
for each actual candidate, summed over all the ballots.
…
So that’s why I said that Approval can be implemented at zero cost. No
software modification needed.
…
Now, what does FairVote (under various names) have to show for its 35
years of expensively promoting IRV (under various names)? Two states &
some cities.
…
Two states.
…
Sorry, but I don’t call that success. Sure, if the people of Oregon &
Nevada have been well-enough deceived, there could be two more states this
year. But 4 out of 50 sounds more like failure for a 35-year effort.
…
If Approval had been the proposal over that period, it would be in use in
all 50 states by now.
…
Critreria:
…
Just as an added bonus:
…
Approval passes several criteria that Condorcet fails:
…
Participation, Consistency, & IIAC (all without loss of Pareto).
…
I don’t include FBC, because Condorcet’s FBC-failure that we discussed at
EM a long time ago is so rare as to be strategically-irrelevant.
…
If burial is a problem, then FBC-failure comes back when we need
favorite-burying drastic defenses to try to protect CW from burial. But the
wv Condorcet-versions are so burial-deterrent, in 2 separate ways
(Minimal-Defense & autodeterrence*), that burial can be ignored when voting.
…
*Even without any defensive-truncation, burial’s backfire is 10 times more
likely than its success.
…
[Conclusion of this short Part 3]
…
If Part 2 hasn’t been sent yet, & doesn’t automatically get sent,
hopefully a copy will be returned to me, & I’ll then send it along.
…
I have to say that, from now on, anything long will be written in word on
the desktop computer instead of on the phone, for safekeeping of long
messages in case they fail to send & are lost.
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
info
Also, just so you know, your part 2 did go through. We got it about 15
minutes before part 3!
On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 8:11 AM Michael Garman <
michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
If Approval had been the proposal over that period, it would be in use
in all 50 states by now.
I find it incredibly hard to believe that there wouldn’t be a partisan
backlash the first time approval cost one or the other — or both — the
election. The major parties famously love giving third parties a fair shot.
Not denying that it’s a fine system that ought to be used in more places
than it currently is, but this claim is absurd.
On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 8:07 AM Michael Ossipoff email9648742@gmail.com
wrote:
Part 3:
…
Part 2 didn’t send. I wrote it on my phone, & it failed to send.
Hopefully a copy will be returned to me, so that I can try again to send
it. But I’m writing this Part 3 on the desk-computer, so that I can save it
in Word, so that, whatever happens with unsuccessful sending, I’ll have it
to resend.
…
Approval-Advantages continued:
…
Let’s talk about enactment:
…
The incomparably easier implementation makes Approval much more
enactable. Let me say more about easy implantation: Approval can be
implemented with no new balloting-equipment, & also without even any
software-modifications. Here’s a way:
…
The existing Plurality-count software is designed for collecting a
single vote in a race. So tell the count-program that there are many 2-way
races (one for each candidate). The ballot has a line for each candidate’s
name & voting-bubble. But, alternating with those lines, are blank lines,
where the count-program expects votes for the nonexistent other candidate
in the fictitious 2-way race.
…
So, when the counting is done, the count-program will report the results
for all those fictitious 2-way races, including 0 for each of the
vote-totals for the nonexistent opponents, & also the vote-totals for each
actual candidate.
…
In that way, the existing Plurality count-software will give the totals
for each actual candidate, summed over all the ballots.
…
So that’s why I said that Approval can be implemented at zero cost. No
software modification needed.
…
Now, what does FairVote (under various names) have to show for its 35
years of expensively promoting IRV (under various names)? Two states &
some cities.
…
Two states.
…
Sorry, but I don’t call that success. Sure, if the people of Oregon &
Nevada have been well-enough deceived, there could be two more states this
year. But 4 out of 50 sounds more like failure for a 35-year effort.
…
If Approval had been the proposal over that period, it would be in use in
all 50 states by now.
…
Critreria:
…
Just as an added bonus:
…
Approval passes several criteria that Condorcet fails:
…
Participation, Consistency, & IIAC (all without loss of Pareto).
…
I don’t include FBC, because Condorcet’s FBC-failure that we discussed at
EM a long time ago is so rare as to be strategically-irrelevant.
…
If burial is a problem, then FBC-failure comes back when we need
favorite-burying drastic defenses to try to protect CW from burial. But the
wv Condorcet-versions are so burial-deterrent, in 2 separate ways
(Minimal-Defense & autodeterrence*), that burial can be ignored when voting.
…
*Even without any defensive-truncation, burial’s backfire is 10 times
more likely than its success.
…
[Conclusion of this short Part 3]
…
If Part 2 hasn’t been sent yet, & doesn’t automatically get sent,
hopefully a copy will be returned to me, & I’ll then send it along.
…
I have to say that, from now on, anything long will be written in word on
the desktop computer instead of on the phone, for safekeeping of long
messages in case they fail to send & are lost.
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
info
Obviously I can't prove it, but look how incomparably much easier Approval
is to describe, propose & implement at zero cost.
On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 3:12 AM Michael Garman <
michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
If Approval had been the proposal over that period, it would be in use
in all 50 states by now.
I find it incredibly hard to believe that there wouldn’t be a partisan
backlash the first time approval cost one or the other — or both — the
election. The major parties famously love giving third parties a fair shot.
Not denying that it’s a fine system that ought to be used in more places
than it currently is, but this claim is absurd.
On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 8:07 AM Michael Ossipoff email9648742@gmail.com
wrote:
Part 3:
…
Part 2 didn’t send. I wrote it on my phone, & it failed to send.
Hopefully a copy will be returned to me, so that I can try again to send
it. But I’m writing this Part 3 on the desk-computer, so that I can save it
in Word, so that, whatever happens with unsuccessful sending, I’ll have it
to resend.
…
Approval-Advantages continued:
…
Let’s talk about enactment:
…
The incomparably easier implementation makes Approval much more
enactable. Let me say more about easy implantation: Approval can be
implemented with no new balloting-equipment, & also without even any
software-modifications. Here’s a way:
…
The existing Plurality-count software is designed for collecting a
single vote in a race. So tell the count-program that there are many 2-way
races (one for each candidate). The ballot has a line for each candidate’s
name & voting-bubble. But, alternating with those lines, are blank lines,
where the count-program expects votes for the nonexistent other candidate
in the fictitious 2-way race.
…
So, when the counting is done, the count-program will report the results
for all those fictitious 2-way races, including 0 for each of the
vote-totals for the nonexistent opponents, & also the vote-totals for each
actual candidate.
…
In that way, the existing Plurality count-software will give the totals
for each actual candidate, summed over all the ballots.
…
So that’s why I said that Approval can be implemented at zero cost. No
software modification needed.
…
Now, what does FairVote (under various names) have to show for its 35
years of expensively promoting IRV (under various names)? Two states &
some cities.
…
Two states.
…
Sorry, but I don’t call that success. Sure, if the people of Oregon &
Nevada have been well-enough deceived, there could be two more states this
year. But 4 out of 50 sounds more like failure for a 35-year effort.
…
If Approval had been the proposal over that period, it would be in use in
all 50 states by now.
…
Critreria:
…
Just as an added bonus:
…
Approval passes several criteria that Condorcet fails:
…
Participation, Consistency, & IIAC (all without loss of Pareto).
…
I don’t include FBC, because Condorcet’s FBC-failure that we discussed at
EM a long time ago is so rare as to be strategically-irrelevant.
…
If burial is a problem, then FBC-failure comes back when we need
favorite-burying drastic defenses to try to protect CW from burial. But the
wv Condorcet-versions are so burial-deterrent, in 2 separate ways
(Minimal-Defense & autodeterrence*), that burial can be ignored when voting.
…
*Even without any defensive-truncation, burial’s backfire is 10 times
more likely than its success.
…
[Conclusion of this short Part 3]
…
If Part 2 hasn’t been sent yet, & doesn’t automatically get sent,
hopefully a copy will be returned to me, & I’ll then send it along.
…
I have to say that, from now on, anything long will be written in word on
the desktop computer instead of on the phone, for safekeeping of long
messages in case they fail to send & are lost.
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
info
Thanks for letting me know that it posted.
On 2024-03-22 08:13, Michael Garman wrote:
Also, just so you know, your part 2 did go through. We got it about 15
minutes before part 3!
As a reader of the list, I would like to ask this, since it's happened
multiple times now: Could you please put your whole response in one
email instead of replying to yourself?
-km
Have you ever sent a message and then realized you have more to say? I
assure you I’m not deliberately spamming the list — nor am I the one
sending three-part diatribes.
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 Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 11:53 AM Kristofer Munsterhjelm <
km_elmet@t-online.de> wrote:
On 2024-03-22 08:13, Michael Garman wrote:
Also, just so you know, your part 2 did go through. We got it about 15
minutes before part 3!
As a reader of the list, I would like to ask this, since it's happened
multiple times now: Could you please put your whole response in one
email instead of replying to yourself?
-km
Blocking Michael Garman.
On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 03:55 Michael Garman michael.garman@rankthevote.us
wrote:
Have you ever sent a message and then realized you have more to say? I
assure you I’m not deliberately spamming the list — nor am I the one
sending three-part diatribes.
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 Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 11:53 AM Kristofer Munsterhjelm <
km_elmet@t-online.de> wrote:
On 2024-03-22 08:13, Michael Garman wrote:
Also, just so you know, your part 2 did go through. We got it about 15
minutes before part 3!
As a reader of the list, I would like to ask this, since it's happened
multiple times now: Could you please put your whole response in one
email instead of replying to yourself?
-km
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
info