Poll on voting-systems, to inform voters in upcoming enactment-elections
Updated list of nominations, in order of nomination:
Approval
RP(wv)
Schulze
IRV
Plurality
MinMax(wv)
Black
Baldwin
Benham
Woodall
Schwartz-Woodall
Smith//Approval (of all ranked)
Smith/:Approval (of specified)
Margins-Sorted Approval
Smith//DAC
Margins-Sorted Minimum Losing Votes (equal-
…rating, whole)
STAR
Sorry, left on out: Smith//Score.
Nominations list as of 2323 GMT, April 6th:
Approval
RP(wv)
Schulze
IRV
Plurality
MinMax(wv)
Black
Baldwin
Benham
Woodall
Schwartz-Woodall
Smith//Approval (of all ranked)
Smith//Approval (of specified)
Margins-Sorted Approval
Smiths//DAC
Margin-Sorted Minimum Losing Votes
…(equalrating,whole)
Smith//Score
STAR
On Sat, Apr 6, 2024 at 16:12 Michael Ossipoff email9648742@gmail.com
wrote:
Updated list of nominations, in order of nomination:
Approval
RP(wv)
Schulze
IRV
Plurality
MinMax(wv)
Black
Baldwin
Benham
Woodall
Schwartz-Woodall
Smith//Approval (of all ranked)
Smith/:Approval (of specified)
Margins-Sorted Approval
Smith//DAC
Margins-Sorted Minimum Losing Votes (equal-
…rating, whole)
STAR
On 4/6/2024 4:12 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
Updated list of nominations, in order of nomination:
...
For this poll I nominate RCIPE, Ranked Choice Including Pairwise
Elimination (pronounced as "recipe").
https://electowiki.org/wiki/Ranked_Choice_Including_Pairwise_Elimination
Basically it's IRV with the elimination of pairwise losing candidates
when they occur. (It would have yielded the correct results in
Burlington and Alaska.) Plus correctly counting so-called "overvotes"
instead of dismissing them.
The referendum that will be on the Oregon November 2024 ballot is two
sentences away from RCIPE.
Keep in mind the Oregon November referendum was passed by the Oregon
legislature!!
It was worded with assistance from election-method experts in Oregon.
They (other than myself) do not participate here. They wisely did not
accept the wording that FairVote pushed two years earlier. (I was one
of the people who testified against FairVote's awful wording.)
Adding a sentence that defines a "pairwise losing candidate" and another
sentence that says to eliminate them when they occur will change the
referendum to the RCIPE method.
That referendum wording omits any mention of overvotes. That makes the
wording compatible with future software that correctly counts those
marks. Yes I also helped make that wording correction happen.
For these reasons the Oregon referendum wording is quite significant!
And, to repeat, it's only two sentences away from the RCIPE method.
Regarding how the poll results will be calculated:
Rather than choosing a specific method for calculating the results of
this poll, I suggest sharing the data in a convenient format and letting
different participants (and others) calculate results using their
favorite vote-counting method.
For even more calculations it should be shared on r/EndFPTP AFTER the
voting. If done before, ballot stuffing is sure to occur.
I believe the results should be a popularity ranking (or rating) that
ranges from "most popular" to "least popular."
I will oppose any attempt to interpret the result as having a meaningful
single "winning" method.
I'm not optimistic that this poll will yield meaningful results. Yet
it's worth trying! We'll learn a lot!
Richard Fobes
The VoteFair guy
On 4/6/2024 4:12 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
Updated list of nominations, in order of nomination:
Approval
RP(wv)
Schulze
IRV
Plurality
MinMax(wv)
Black
Baldwin
Benham
Woodall
Schwartz-Woodall
Smith//Approval (of all ranked)
Smith/:Approval (of specified)
Margins-Sorted Approval
Smith//DAC
Margins-Sorted Minimum Losing Votes (equal-
…rating, whole)
STAR
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info
On 2024-04-07 02:00, Richard, the VoteFair guy wrote:
On 4/6/2024 4:12 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
Updated list of nominations, in order of nomination:
...
For this poll I nominate RCIPE, Ranked Choice Including Pairwise
Elimination (pronounced as "recipe").
I've updated the list. The most recent one is now:
Approval
RP(wv)
Schulze
IRV
Plurality
Majority Judgement (as a category; includes usual judgement etc.)
Approval with manual runoff
Copeland//Borda (also called Ranked Robin)
MinMax(wv)
Black
STAR
Smith//Score
Baldwin
Benham
Woodall
Schwartz-Woodall
Smith//Approval (implicit - of all ranked)
Smith//Approval (explicit - specified approval cutoff)
Margins-Sorted Approval
Smith//DAC
Margins-Sorted Minimum Losing Votes (equal-rated whole)
RCIPE.
-km
First of all, I don’t know how meaningful it is to speak of someone
“running” the poll. The nominations are there, regardless of who is
nominally "running" the poll.
As for the poll-counting method, as I mentioned, Schulze is the longtime
established favorite, & is implemented in probably numerous
Internet-calculators, & its count-algorithm software is probably already
possessed by a number of people here. ...& it's implemented at CIVS, where
we could do a private poll by Schulze...conveniently being able to count it
by 4 other methods to, just by selecting them.
...& automatically get an output-ranking, a finishing-order by Schulze.
When I prop;osed the poll, I suggested Schulze, & there was good reason&
support for that suggestion. As I said a new-invention-method would be
inappropriate & unrepresentative of EM.
Obviously anyone can count the rankings as they choose. But I suggest that
Schulze's output-ranking is the one that can reasonably be said to be most
representative off EfM, due to Schulze's longtime favoriteness here.
Admittedly it's inconvenient that I've blocked 4 people, though I told good
reasons for doing so in each instance. But, I want to know what the
nominations & ballots are, & maybe they won't always be re-posted. So, to
hear what's nominated & voted in the poll, I'm probvisionally
unblocking 3 of the 4 people that I've blocked. But not Toby, because he's
still perpetrating his conduct.for which he was blocked.
Likewise, the nomination & voting periods that I suggested seem reasonable,
&* it would be irregular & counterproductive to argue for changing them.
Any changes argued-for, for the poll, should be clearly justified, because
changes without a reason are unhelpful in any group-project.
Because I've blocked 4 people, & haven't yet unblocked the 3 that I intend
to unblock, I hope that someone whom I haven't blocked will post updates of
the nominations-list. That's a reasonable request. Obviously my updates
won't be reliably-complete until I've unblocked those 3 persons.
Now, to answer this message:
On Sat, Apr 6, 2024 at 17:00 Richard, the VoteFair guy <
electionmethods@votefair.org> wrote:
On 4/6/2024 4:12 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
Updated list of nominations, in order of nomination:
...
For this poll I nominate RCIPE, Ranked Choice Including Pairwise
Elimination (pronounced as "recipe").
Alright, we all received that nomination, & we can each add it to our copy
of the nominations-list.
https://electowiki.org/wiki/Ranked_Choice_Including_Pairwise_Elimination
Basically it's IRV with the elimination of pairwise losing candidates
when they occur. (It would have yielded the correct results in
Burlington and Alaska.) Plus correctly counting so-called "overvotes"
instead of dismissing them.
The referendum that will be on the Oregon November 2024 ballot is two
sentences away from RCIPE.
Keep in mind the Oregon November referendum was passed by the Oregon
legislature!!
What's the relevance of that?? Two sentences can drastically change a
method.
It was worded with assistance from election-method experts in Oregon.
They (other than myself) do not participate here. They wisely did not
accept the wording that FairVote pushed two years earlier. (I was one
of the people who testified against FairVote's awful wording.)
Adding a sentence that defines a "pairwise losing candidate" and another
sentence that says to eliminate them when they occur will change the
referendum to the RCIPE method.
So you think that those two sentences are going to be added to the state
referendum between now & November?
In any case, whatever you meant by that, differing from the referendum's
proposal by "only" two sentences doesn't confer any official legitimacy to
your method
That referendum wording omits any mention of overvotes. That makes the
wording compatible with future software that correctly counts those
marks. Yes I also helped make that wording correction happen.
For these reasons the Oregon referendum wording is quite significant!
And, to repeat, it's only two sentences away from the RCIPE method.
Regarding how the poll results will be calculated:
Rather than choosing a specific method for calculating the results of
this poll, I suggest sharing the data in a convenient format and letting
different participants (and others) calculate results using their
favorite vote-counting method.
For even more calculations it should be shared on r/EndFPTP AFTER the
voting. If done before, ballot stuffing is sure to occur.
Ballot-stuffing isn't a problem if each ballot is received from an EM
participant, with their e-mail address on it. ...or if the count is done
at CIVS as a private-poll. For that, the e-mail addresses of the voters
are provided to CIVS when starting their private-poll, & ballots are sent
to each thus-registered voter.
This IS NOT an open participation poll. It's an EM poll only. If you want
to do a poll at a subreddit, then go for it.
I believe the results should be a popularity ranking (or rating) that
ranges from "most popular" to "least popular."
Believe what you want, but a new method that some individual "believes" in
would be a poor substitute for the longtime favorite at EM. The idea is to
best represent the collective preference at EM...as determined by a method
long-favorite at EM.
I will oppose any attempt to interpret the result as having a meaningful
single "winning" method.
Suit yourself. A Schulze output-ranking (finishing-order) will be
reported.. Count the rankings as you choose, & feel free to report that
too.
On 4/6/2024 4:12 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
Updated list of nominations, in order of nomination:
Approval
RP(wv)
Schulze
IRV
Plurality
MinMax(wv)
Black
Baldwin
Benham
Woodall
Schwartz-Woodall
Smith//Approval (of all ranked)
Smith/:Approval (of specified)
Margins-Sorted Approval
Smith//DAC
Margins-Sorted Minimum Losing Votes (equal-
…rating, whole)
STAR
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
info
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
info
But don’t you want the STAR initiative next month in Eugene, Oregon to
pass?
Definitely not. It is a very bad method, worse than Approval.
Hare is much better, and I gather there is some prospect that Oregon
can get that.
https://fairvoteaction.org/ranked-choice-voting-could-be-coming-to-oregon/
…&, unlike the dishonesty & fraud of FairVote, the EqualVote people
have been honest.
If the authors of their online propaganda are honest, then they are
quite stupid and/or misguided.
Chris
On 7/04/2024 5:22 am, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
I didn’t answer your other question:
And surely anyone here on this list can nominate any method
they choose (and have it accepted/acknowledged) regardless of
whether or not the method's supporters want it nominated.
Yes, I have to agree that that sounds fair.
But don’t you want the STAR initiative next month in Eugene, Oregon to
pass?
We’re mostly Condorcetists here. STAR would finish below everything
but IRV & Plurality. It would finish 3rd-from-bottom.
The IRVists would call attention to that in Eugene.
I don’t think you want that any more than I do.
EqualVote has worked long & hard on that initiative.
…&, unlike the dishonesty & fraud of FairVote, the EqualVote people
have been honest.
Of course anyone can nominate anything, because the poll would lose
democratic-legitimacy & if I tried to say otherwise. But surely you
don’t want to do that to them.
Anyway, wouldn’t it be a step up, to demonstrate in Eugene that there
are better things than Plurality?
Chris Benham
On 6/04/2024 10:46 pm, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
This is to acknowledge the nominations of
Smith//Default-Approval, Smith//Explicit-Approval,
Margins-Sorted Approval, & Smith//DAC.
I’d say include STAR, because that’s what its advocates would
want. …or would they? Its enactment is going to be voted-on
in Eugene next month, & what if it finishes low here? That
would be worse for the Eugene initiative than not including it.
Of course showing voters about methods’ popularity here is my
stated-purpose for the poll, & the fact that it’s about to be
voted on for enactment would seem to suggest including it.
But the advocates of STAR have been working hard, completely
in good faith, & STAR is a lot better than IRV. Those are two
good reasons to let EqualVote decide on STAR’s inclusion in
the poll.
I’ll ask the EqualVote group, & go by what they say.
(In fact STAR, while more complicated than Approval, has
nothing like the amount of count-complexity of Condorcet, or
the consequent amount of count-insecurity & count-fraud
vulnerability. I personally don’t propose STAR, because I
regard it as an inbetween compromise between Approval & the
ranked-methods, & I want the absolutely minimal. (I only
propose Condorcet to jurisdictions where people insist on
rankings.) …but, by my simplicity-standard, STAR scores high,
even though I don’t propose it.)
So the nominations list so-far is now (listed in order of
nomination):
Approval
RP(wv)
Schulze
IRV
Plurality
MinMax(wv)
Black
Baldwin
Benham
Woodall
Schwartz-Woodall
Smith//Approval (of all ranked)
Smith//Approval (of what is specified)
Margin-Sorted Approval
Smith//DAC
On Sat, Apr 6, 2024 at 04:03 Chris Benham
<cbenhamau@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
I would like to nominate several methods.
Smith//Approval (Ranking):
Voters rank from the top only those candidates they
"approve", equal-ranking allowed,
the most approved member of the voted Smith set wins.
Smith//Approval (specified cutoff):
Voters rank from the top however many candidates they
wish and can also specify an approval
cutoff/threshold. Default approval is only for candidates
ranked below no others (i.e. ranked top
or equal-top).
The most approved member of the Smith set wins.
Margins Sorted Approval (specified cutoff):
Voters rank from the top however many candidates they
wish and can also specify an approval
cutoff/threshold. Default approval is only for candidates
ranked below no others (i.e. ranked top
or equal-top).
A Forrest Simmons invention. Candidates are listed in
approval score order and if any adjacent pairs
are pairwise out of order then this is corrected by
flipping the out-of-order pair with the smallest
margin. If there is a tie for this we flip the less
approved pair. Repeat until there are no adjacent pairs
of candidates that are pairwise out of order, then elect
the highest-ordered candidate.
Smith//:DAC
Voters rank from the top however many candidates they
wish, equal-ranking allowed.
Eliminate candidates not in the Smith set and then apply
Woodall's Descending Acquiescing Coalitions method.
There is a method I hate that is apparently contending in
the real world: "STAR". Given the stated purpose of
this poll, is there a case for including it?
Chris Benham
*Michael Ossipoff*email9648742 at gmail.com
<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=%3CCAOKDY5BkSGJkX%3D7zWXBr2t1SBNVMNj96wm-T8ubvr_wGM5h51w%40mail.gmail.com%3E>
/Wed Apr 3 22:13:28 PDT 2024/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EM used to do a lot of polls, but now never does. So I wouldn’t propose
one, if it weren’t for the fact that, this year, the voters of at least two
states are going to vote on whether to enact a certain voting-system.
It seems to me—tell me if I’m wrong—that those people have a right to know
how people familiar with voting-systems feel about the relative merits of
some voting-systems.
So, though I claim that polls are valuable for demonstrating the experience
of using the voting systems, & how they work, & what they’ll do—& are
therefore useful & worthwhile for their own sake—this poll that I now
propose isn’t a poll for its own sake.
It is, as I said, proposed for the important practical purpose of letting
the voters in the upcoming enactment-elections know how we feel about the
relative merits of some voting-systems, including the one that they’re
about to vote on the enactment of.
The voting-method for the poll:
It seems to me that Schulze is the most popular ranked voting-system, among
the people at EM.
…& it seems to me that the last time we voted on EM’s collective favorite
voting-system, Approval won.
Those seem the top-two, in EM popularity.
On Sat, Apr 6, 2024 at 21:47 Chris Benham cbenhamau@yahoo.com.au wrote:
But don’t you want the STAR initiative next month in Eugene, Oregon to
pass?
Definitely not. It is a very bad method, worse than Approval.
But better than count-fraud.
Of course I prefer Approval to STAR.
Hare is much better, and I gather there is some prospect that Oregon can
get that.
At first I thought that might be a good thing, until I found out that the
IRVist-organizations aren’t willing to come-clean & choose honesty.
Never buy a fraudulently-promoted product.
Did you hear that, Oregon & Nevada?
https://fairvoteaction.org/ranked-choice-voting-could-be-coming-to-oregon/
…&, unlike the dishonesty & fraud of FairVote, the EqualVote people have
been honest.
If the authors of their online propaganda are honest, then they are quite
stupid and/or misguided.
They’re younger. FairVote is just outright dishonest.
Chris
On 7/04/2024 5:22 am, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
I didn’t answer your other question:
And surely anyone here on this list can nominate any method they choose
(and have it accepted/acknowledged) regardless of whether or not the
method's supporters want it nominated.
Yes, I have to agree that that sounds fair.
But don’t you want the STAR initiative next month in Eugene, Oregon to
pass?
We’re mostly Condorcetists here. STAR would finish below everything but
IRV & Plurality. It would finish 3rd-from-bottom.
The IRVists would call attention to that in Eugene.
I don’t think you want that any more than I do.
EqualVote has worked long & hard on that initiative.
…&, unlike the dishonesty & fraud of FairVote, the EqualVote people have
been honest.
Of course anyone can nominate anything, because the poll would lose
democratic-legitimacy & if I tried to say otherwise. But surely you don’t
want to do that to them.
Anyway, wouldn’t it be a step up, to demonstrate in Eugene that there are
better things than Plurality?
Chris Benham
On 6/04/2024 10:46 pm, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
This is to acknowledge the nominations of Smith//Default-Approval,
Smith//Explicit-Approval, Margins-Sorted Approval, & Smith//DAC.
I’d say include STAR, because that’s what its advocates would want. …or
would they? Its enactment is going to be voted-on in Eugene next month, &
what if it finishes low here? That would be worse for the Eugene initiative
than not including it.
Of course showing voters about methods’ popularity here is my
stated-purpose for the poll, & the fact that it’s about to be voted on for
enactment would seem to suggest including it.
But the advocates of STAR have been working hard, completely in good
faith, & STAR is a lot better than IRV. Those are two good reasons to let
EqualVote decide on STAR’s inclusion in the poll.
I’ll ask the EqualVote group, & go by what they say.
(In fact STAR, while more complicated than Approval, has nothing like
the amount of count-complexity of Condorcet, or the consequent amount of
count-insecurity & count-fraud vulnerability. I personally don’t propose
STAR, because I regard it as an inbetween compromise between Approval & the
ranked-methods, & I want the absolutely minimal. (I only propose Condorcet
to jurisdictions where people insist on rankings.) …but, by my
simplicity-standard, STAR scores high, even though I don’t propose it.)
So the nominations list so-far is now (listed in order of nomination):
Approval
RP(wv)
Schulze
IRV
Plurality
MinMax(wv)
Black
Baldwin
Benham
Woodall
Schwartz-Woodall
Smith//Approval (of all ranked)
Smith//Approval (of what is specified)
Margin-Sorted Approval
Smith//DAC
On Sat, Apr 6, 2024 at 04:03 Chris Benham cbenhamau@yahoo.com.au
wrote:
I would like to nominate several methods.
Smith//Approval (Ranking):
Voters rank from the top only those candidates they "approve",
equal-ranking allowed,
the most approved member of the voted Smith set wins.
Smith//Approval (specified cutoff):
Voters rank from the top however many candidates they wish and can also
specify an approval
cutoff/threshold. Default approval is only for candidates ranked below
no others (i.e. ranked top
or equal-top).
The most approved member of the Smith set wins.
Margins Sorted Approval (specified cutoff):
Voters rank from the top however many candidates they wish and can also
specify an approval
cutoff/threshold. Default approval is only for candidates ranked below
no others (i.e. ranked top
or equal-top).
A Forrest Simmons invention. Candidates are listed in approval score
order and if any adjacent pairs
are pairwise out of order then this is corrected by flipping the
out-of-order pair with the smallest
margin. If there is a tie for this we flip the less approved pair.
Repeat until there are no adjacent pairs
of candidates that are pairwise out of order, then elect the
highest-ordered candidate.
Smith//:DAC
Voters rank from the top however many candidates they wish,
equal-ranking allowed.
Eliminate candidates not in the Smith set and then apply
Woodall's Descending Acquiescing Coalitions method.
There is a method I hate that is apparently contending in the real
world: "STAR". Given the stated purpose of
this poll, is there a case for including it?
Chris Benham
Michael Ossipoff email9648742 at gmail.com
<election-methods%40lists.electorama.com?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BEM%5D%20Poll%20on%20voting-systems%2C%0A%20to%20inform%20voters%20in%20upcoming%20enactment-elections&In-Reply-To=%3CCAOKDY5BkSGJkX%3D7zWXBr2t1SBNVMNj96wm-T8ubvr_wGM5h51w%40mail.gmail.com%3E>
Wed Apr 3 22:13:28 PDT 2024
EM used to do a lot of polls, but now never does. So I wouldn’t propose
one, if it weren’t for the fact that, this year, the voters of at least two
states are going to vote on whether to enact a certain voting-system.
It seems to me—tell me if I’m wrong—that those people have a right to know
how people familiar with voting-systems feel about the relative merits of
some voting-systems.
So, though I claim that polls are valuable for demonstrating the experience
of using the voting systems, & how they work, & what they’ll do—& are
therefore useful & worthwhile for their own sake—this poll that I now
propose isn’t a poll for its own sake.
It is, as I said, proposed for the important practical purpose of letting
the voters in the upcoming enactment-elections know how we feel about the
relative merits of some voting-systems, including the one that they’re
about to vote on the enactment of.
The voting-method for the poll:
It seems to me that Schulze is the most popular ranked voting-system, among
the people at EM.
…& it seems to me that the last time we voted on EM’s collective favorite
voting-system, Approval won.
Those seem the top-two, in EM popularity.
Never buy a fraudulently-promoted product.
It is sometimes important to buy the better product, regardless of how
it is promoted.
Say for example you are in the market for a family car. The promoters of
one tell you that
in their car all its occupants have say a 99% chance of surviving an
accident (when it's really
only 90%) while the promoters of a competitor honestly admit that in
their car you chance
of surviving an accident is only say 70%.
Which car do you buy?
In this case of STAR versus Hare, the relative merits are accessible via
not-too-deep thought
experiments.
One is much older than its current promoters and been relatively widely
used for a longish time,
while the other has just been cooked up as a "modern method" by people
who tell us that they
are "experts" and that we can trust their "computer simulations".
Chris
On 7/04/2024 4:05 pm, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
On Sat, Apr 6, 2024 at 21:47 Chris Benham cbenhamau@yahoo.com.au wrote:
But don’t you want the STAR initiative next month in Eugene,
Oregon to pass?
Definitely not. It is a very bad method, worse than Approval.
But better than count-fraud.
Of course I prefer Approval to STAR.
Hare is much better, and I gather there is some prospect that
Oregon can get that.
At first I thought that might be a good thing, until I found out that
the IRVist-organizations aren’t willing to come-clean & choose honesty.
Never buy a fraudulently-promoted product.
Did you hear that, Oregon & Nevada?
https://fairvoteaction.org/ranked-choice-voting-could-be-coming-to-oregon/
…&, unlike the dishonesty & fraud of FairVote, the EqualVote
people have been honest.
If the authors of their online propaganda are honest, then they
are quite stupid and/or misguided.
They’re younger. FairVote is just outright dishonest.
Chris
On 7/04/2024 5:22 am, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
I didn’t answer your other question:
And surely anyone here on this list can nominate any
method they choose (and have it accepted/acknowledged)
regardless of whether or not the method's supporters want
it nominated.
Yes, I have to agree that that sounds fair.
But don’t you want the STAR initiative next month in Eugene,
Oregon to pass?
We’re mostly Condorcetists here. STAR would finish below
everything but IRV & Plurality. It would finish 3rd-from-bottom.
The IRVists would call attention to that in Eugene.
I don’t think you want that any more than I do.
EqualVote has worked long & hard on that initiative.
…&, unlike the dishonesty & fraud of FairVote, the EqualVote
people have been honest.
Of course anyone can nominate anything, because the poll would
lose democratic-legitimacy & if I tried to say otherwise. But
surely you don’t want to do that to them.
Anyway, wouldn’t it be a step up, to demonstrate in Eugene that
there are better things than Plurality?
Chris Benham
On 6/04/2024 10:46 pm, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
This is to acknowledge the nominations of
Smith//Default-Approval, Smith//Explicit-Approval,
Margins-Sorted Approval, & Smith//DAC.
I’d say include STAR, because that’s what its advocates
would want. …or would they? Its enactment is going to
be voted-on in Eugene next month, & what if it finishes
low here? That would be worse for the Eugene initiative
than not including it.
Of course showing voters about methods’ popularity here
is my stated-purpose for the poll, & the fact that it’s
about to be voted on for enactment would seem to suggest
including it.
But the advocates of STAR have been working hard,
completely in good faith, & STAR is a lot better than
IRV. Those are two good reasons to let EqualVote decide
on STAR’s inclusion in the poll.
I’ll ask the EqualVote group, & go by what they say.
(In fact STAR, while more complicated than Approval, has
nothing like the amount of count-complexity of
Condorcet, or the consequent amount of count-insecurity
& count-fraud vulnerability. I personally don’t propose
STAR, because I regard it as an inbetween compromise
between Approval & the ranked-methods, & I want the
absolutely minimal. (I only propose Condorcet to
jurisdictions where people insist on rankings.) …but, by
my simplicity-standard, STAR scores high, even though I
don’t propose it.)
So the nominations list so-far is now (listed in order
of nomination):
Approval
RP(wv)
Schulze
IRV
Plurality
MinMax(wv)
Black
Baldwin
Benham
Woodall
Schwartz-Woodall
Smith//Approval (of all ranked)
Smith//Approval (of what is specified)
Margin-Sorted Approval
Smith//DAC
On Sat, Apr 6, 2024 at 04:03 Chris Benham
<cbenhamau@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
I would like to nominate several methods.
Smith//Approval (Ranking):
Voters rank from the top only those candidates they
"approve", equal-ranking allowed,
the most approved member of the voted Smith set wins.
Smith//Approval (specified cutoff):
Voters rank from the top however many candidates
they wish and can also specify an approval
cutoff/threshold. Default approval is only for
candidates ranked below no others (i.e. ranked top
or equal-top).
The most approved member of the Smith set wins.
Margins Sorted Approval (specified cutoff):
Voters rank from the top however many candidates
they wish and can also specify an approval
cutoff/threshold. Default approval is only for
candidates ranked below no others (i.e. ranked top
or equal-top).
A Forrest Simmons invention. Candidates are listed
in approval score order and if any adjacent pairs
are pairwise out of order then this is corrected by
flipping the out-of-order pair with the smallest
margin. If there is a tie for this we flip the less
approved pair. Repeat until there are no adjacent pairs
of candidates that are pairwise out of order, then
elect the highest-ordered candidate.
Smith//:DAC
Voters rank from the top however many candidates
they wish, equal-ranking allowed.
Eliminate candidates not in the Smith set and then
apply Woodall's Descending Acquiescing Coalitions
method.
There is a method I hate that is apparently
contending in the real world: "STAR". Given the
stated purpose of
this poll, is there a case for including it?
Chris Benham
*Michael Ossipoff*email9648742 at gmail.com
<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=%3CCAOKDY5BkSGJkX%3D7zWXBr2t1SBNVMNj96wm-T8ubvr_wGM5h51w%40mail.gmail.com%3E>
/Wed Apr 3 22:13:28 PDT 2024/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EM used to do a lot of polls, but now never does. So I wouldn’t propose
one, if it weren’t for the fact that, this year, the voters of at least two
states are going to vote on whether to enact a certain voting-system.
It seems to me—tell me if I’m wrong—that those people have a right to know
how people familiar with voting-systems feel about the relative merits of
some voting-systems.
So, though I claim that polls are valuable for demonstrating the experience
of using the voting systems, & how they work, & what they’ll do—& are
therefore useful & worthwhile for their own sake—this poll that I now
propose isn’t a poll for its own sake.
It is, as I said, proposed for the important practical purpose of letting
the voters in the upcoming enactment-elections know how we feel about the
relative merits of some voting-systems, including the one that they’re
about to vote on the enactment of.
The voting-method for the poll:
It seems to me that Schulze is the most popular ranked voting-system, among
the people at EM.
…& it seems to me that the last time we voted on EM’s collective favorite
voting-system, Approval won.
Those seem the top-two, in EM popularity.
On 04/07/2024 9:51 AM EDT Chris Benham cbenhamau@yahoo.com.au wrote:
Never buy a fraudulently-promoted product.
It is sometimes important to buy the better product, regardless of how it is promoted.
Say for example you are in the market for a family car. The promoters of one tell you that
in their car all its occupants have say a 99% chance of surviving an accident (when it's really
only 90%) while the promoters of a competitor honestly admit that in their car you chance
of surviving an accident is only say 70%.
Which car do you buy?
In this case of STAR versus Hare, the relative merits are accessible via not-too-deep thought
experiments.
One is much older than its current promoters and been relatively widely used for a longish time,
while the other has just been cooked up as a "modern method" by people who tell us that they
are "experts" and that we can trust their "computer simulations".
Chris
Chris joins Kristofer in my appreciation category.
I continue to believe that it's just more important that important principles be focused on, and I can't think of a more important principle that, when at all possible, our votes are counted equally. That each of us voters have equal influence on government in our elections for public office. If our votes are not counted equally, then I want my vote to count more than yours.
Then if we insist that votes count equally, then we agree that if more voters mark their ballots preferring A to B than the number of voters marking their ballots to the contrary, then when at all possible, we don't elect B.
That's it. One-person-one-vote leads to Majority rule which leads to some Condorcet-consistent method. I believe that this principle takes primacy over any other for deciding single-winner elections when there is no proportionality to be had. For multi-winner elections I might be for an STV method.
--
r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
.
.
.
That's it. One-person-one-vote leads to Majority rule which leads to some
Condorcet-consistent method. I believe that this principle takes primacy
over any other for deciding single-winner elections when there is no
proportionality to be had. For multi-winner elections I might be for an
STV method.
Then STAR should be great, since it has sky-high Condorcet efficiency. It's
easily more Condorcet-efficient than approval (because of the extra runoff,
which can elect a Condorcet winner in second place), and approval already
tends to pick Condorcet winners in practice.
I've personally got my own disagreements with STAR, but this is
just bizarre. If nothing else, the lesson people will take away from
comments like this is going to be "no point trying to compromise with the
Condorcetists, so we might as well go back to score."
On Sun, Apr 7, 2024 at 8:10 PM robert bristow-johnson <
rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote:
On 04/07/2024 9:51 AM EDT Chris Benham cbenhamau@yahoo.com.au wrote:
Never buy a fraudulently-promoted product.
It is sometimes important to buy the better product, regardless of how
it is promoted.
Say for example you are in the market for a family car. The promoters
of one tell you that
in their car all its occupants have say a 99% chance of surviving an
accident (when it's really
only 90%) while the promoters of a competitor honestly admit that in
their car you chance
of surviving an accident is only say 70%.
Which car do you buy?
In this case of STAR versus Hare, the relative merits are accessible
via not-too-deep thought
experiments.
One is much older than its current promoters and been relatively widely
used for a longish time,
while the other has just been cooked up as a "modern method" by people
who tell us that they
are "experts" and that we can trust their "computer simulations".
Chris
Chris joins Kristofer in my appreciation category.
I continue to believe that it's just more important that important
principles be focused on, and I can't think of a more important principle
that, when at all possible, our votes are counted equally. That each of us
voters have equal influence on government in our elections for public
office. If our votes are not counted equally, then I want my vote to count
more than yours.
Then if we insist that votes count equally, then we agree that if more
voters mark their ballots preferring A to B than the number of voters
marking their ballots to the contrary, then when at all possible, we don't
elect B.
That's it. One-person-one-vote leads to Majority rule which leads to some
Condorcet-consistent method. I believe that this principle takes primacy
over any other for deciding single-winner elections when there is no
proportionality to be had. For multi-winner elections I might be for an
STV method.
--
r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
.
.
.
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
info