I should add that there’s no reason for concern that your vote will be
wasted in Party-PR, if the party you vote for doesn’t get enough votes for
a seat.

That’s because:

With 500 seats elected at-large in Sainte-Lague, the requirement for a seat
is only about 1/7 of one percent.

Suppose that there are 10 progressive parties that split the progressive
vote into 10 equal parts.

…& that none of them get enough votes for a seat.

Alright, 1/7 of one percent, times 10 = 1/70 of the vote.  … = about 1.43%
of the vote.

So, by not voting for a guaranteed winnable umbrella ☂ party, the
progressives have only wasted, & denied the umbrella party 1.4% of the
vote.  … not enough to likely affect the parliamentary balance-of-power.

STV requires many small districts, which, like its complicated count, & its
balloting-requirements, is an avoidable complication &
implementation-problem.

Petty-PR doesn’t need any districting. At-large. Quick, easy, simple.

What, people might want to elect someone local? They still can!!

Any quota-size local group group can elect a local candidate of their
choice if they want to.

…or not!!

It’s their choice. as it should be. We shouldn’t be forced to elect someone
local. Democracy doesn’t coerce.

On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 21:24 Michael Ossipoff email9648742@gmail.com
wrote:

Sorry, I forgot to add that with a 500-seat parliament, elected at-large,
even d’Hondt has a very low requirement for a seat:

Instead of 1/7 of one percent, it’s 1/5 of one percent. Not problematically
high.

I prefer SL because of its near-perfect unbias, but it could be argued
that, for the systematic-procedures usually used to define & do the
allocations, d’Hondt’s looks simpler & more intuitive.

…though by the trial-&-error methods by which the methods were historically
defined for apportionment here, SL’s (Webster’s) rounding to the nearest
integer is more natural & intuitive than DH’s (Jefferson’s) rounding down.

I prefer SL’s unbias, unless a population insist on d’Hondt’s simpler more
intuitive systematic-procedure.

On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 21:49 Michael Ossipoff email9648742@gmail.com
wrote:

Michael, here is my ballot.

You can translate this into your desired ballot format.

If you claim you need a full ranking, then I choose not to vote in this
poll.  That's because I don't have time to research unfamiliar
candidates and unfamiliar parties.

In the candidate poll my ballot is that I rank Biden as the only
"approved" candidate -- even though I wish he would drop out and
transfer his delegate votes to nearly anyone.

I rank Trump at the bottom of the candidate list, below all the other
candidates, because he wants to destroy democracy, destroy the U.S.
economy as a favor to Putin, and destroy the U.S. military as another
favor to Putin.

In between I rank all the other candidates at the same preference level,
and not worth researching to rank them because they lack high-level
executive experience and expertise.

In the party poll, I rank the Democratic party as the only "approved"
party because it's the only party offering a viable candidate.

Under current circumstances I rank the Republican party at the bottom of
the list, below all other parties.  That's because they are not offering
a candidate who wants to preserve fair elections, protect the U.S.
against its enemies, and improve the economy.  As another flaw, the new
Republican party platform claims the presidential election will not be
fair if the Republican candidate doesn't win the presidential election.

In case you didn't notice the above words "only approved party," I'll
clarify that all the parties other than the Democratic party are
"unapproved" because they do not offer viable candidates.

Apparently, in this poll, you want me to point to one party as the one I
like.  It's "none of the above."  That's because I dislike all current
U.S. political parties.  Yes, I'm willing to "throw away" this vote to
express this preference.

Clarification:  I register with either the Republican or Democratic
party so I can vote in the primary elections of one or the other of the
two parties that supply viable nominees.  I switch between those two
parties periodically.  I dislike them both.  I also dislike all third
parties.

My dislike of existing political parties is why I promote
election-method reform!  If U.S. election reforms are well-designed,
then in the future at least one U.S. party will be motivated to offer
wise problem-solving leaders instead of whatever you want to call their
current nominees.

Richard Fobes

On 7/16/2024 9:24 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:

...

On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 16:55 Richard, the VoteFair guy <
electionmethods@votefair.org> wrote:

Richard—

Ballot recorded.

No, neither RP(wv), nor RCV, nor STV requires a full ranking. So your
ballot is perfectly technically valid & complete, as-is.

That's because I don't have time to research unfamiliar

Of course, that’s a good reason to vote a short ranking or a 1-candidate
approval.

I & others voted that way in the voting-systems poll.

It would probably be as inappropriate as hell for the poll proposer &
conductor to comment on someone’s ballot.

But surely it would be okay for anyone here to reply to someone else’s
political comments, or evaluations of candidates & parties.

Such discussion is necessary, & there’s an understanding here that
“electioneering” is part of polling…or at least should be permissible. I
believe that it’s more than permissible: Discussion about why we vote as we
do, & the expression of contrary opinions, reactions or choices, are
essential.

But it probably wouldn’t be appropriate in the “official” reply that
acknowledges your ballot.

So I’ll reply in a separate post, immediately after this one.

Richard gets at the fundamental problem with polls like this: anyone willing to run for President as a third party candidate in the current political climate under the current electoral system has shown a lack of judgement and responsibility which makes them an unacceptable choice. There are a number of people I'd rather see as President than Biden, but they're not running this year. Likewise, responsible alternative parties only seem to develop when they have a chance to participate in government.  If we had a real multi party system, the different factions in the established parties would make up 4-5 smaller parties that would govern in coalition.

JTW

From: Election-Methods election-methods-bounces@lists.electorama.com on behalf of Michael Ossipoff email9648742@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2024 4:35:20 AM
To: Richard, the VoteFair guy electionmethods@votefair.org
Cc: election-methods@lists.electorama.com election-methods@lists.electorama.com
Subject: Re: [EM] Poll Ballot, from Richard

CAUTION: This message from outside RIT could not be authenticated.

If you do not recognize the email address of the person who sent the email, do not click on links, open attachments, or repond to the message.

Please see article KB0042035 at help.rit.edu or contact the RIT Service Center at 585-475-5000 for additional information.

On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 16:55 Richard, the VoteFair guy <electionmethods@votefair.orgmailto:electionmethods@votefair.org> wrote:
Michael, here is my ballot.

If you claim you need a full ranking, then I choose not to vote in this
poll.

Richard—

Ballot recorded.

No, neither RP(wv), nor RCV, nor STV requires a full ranking. So your ballot is perfectly technically valid & complete, as-is.

That's because I don't have time to research unfamiliar
candidates and unfamiliar parties.

Of course, that’s a good reason to vote a short ranking or a 1-candidate approval.

I & others voted that way in the voting-systems poll.

It would probably be as inappropriate as hell for the poll proposer & conductor to comment on someone’s ballot.

But surely it would be okay for anyone here to reply to someone else’s political comments, or evaluations of candidates & parties.

Such discussion is necessary, & there’s an understanding here that “electioneering” is part of polling…or at least should be permissible. I believe that it’s more than permissible: Discussion about why we vote as we do, & the expression of contrary opinions, reactions or choices, are essential.

But it probably wouldn’t be appropriate in the “official” reply that acknowledges your ballot.

So I’ll reply in a separate post, immediately after this one.

In the candidate poll my ballot is that I rank Biden as the only
"approved" candidate -- even though I wish he would drop out and
transfer his delegate votes to nearly anyone.

I rank Trump at the bottom of the candidate list, below all the other
candidates, because he wants to destroy democracy, destroy the U.S.
economy as a favor to Putin, and destroy the U.S. military as another
favor to Putin.

In between I rank all the other candidates at the same preference level,
and not worth researching to rank them because they lack high-level
executive experience and expertise.

In the party poll, I rank the Democratic party as the only "approved"
party because it's the only party offering a viable candidate.

Under current circumstances I rank the Republican party at the bottom of
the list, below all other parties.  That's because they are not offering
a candidate who wants to preserve fair elections, protect the U.S.
against its enemies, and improve the economy.  As another flaw, the new
Republican party platform claims the presidential election will not be
fair if the Republican candidate doesn't win the presidential election.

In case you didn't notice the above words "only approved party," I'll
clarify that all the parties other than the Democratic party are
"unapproved" because they do not offer viable candidates.

Apparently, in this poll, you want me to point to one party as the one I
like.  It's "none of the above."  That's because I dislike all current
U.S. political parties.  Yes, I'm willing to "throw away" this vote to
express this preference.

Clarification:  I register with either the Republican or Democratic
party so I can vote in the primary elections of one or the other of the
two parties that supply viable nominees.  I switch between those two
parties periodically.  I dislike them both.  I also dislike all third
parties.

My dislike of existing political parties is why I promote
election-method reform!  If U.S. election reforms are well-designed,
then in the future at least one U.S. party will be motivated to offer
wise problem-solving leaders instead of whatever you want to call their
current nominees.

Richard Fobes

On 7/16/2024 9:24 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:

...

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

I forgot to mention: RCV & STV don’t allow equa-ranking (though Condorcet
does).

However I wouldn’t call an RCV or STV ballot “spoiled” if it has
equal-ranking. I’d instead just rank any equal-ranked candidates, at some
particular rank-position, in alphabetical-order by last-name

I figure the voter won’t mind, because he doesn’t have any preference among
them.

Is that okay?

Of course, for the RP(wv) count your equal-ranked candidates will be
counted as equal-ranked, because equal-ranking is permissible in Condorcet.

Additional answers inline below:

On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 16:55 Richard, the VoteFair guy <
electionmethods@votefair.org> wrote:

Okay.

-- even though I wish he would drop out and

Okay.

because he wants to destroy democracy, destroy the U.S.

Yes, The Republican in general, & Trump in particular, always finishes
last, in every Condorcet or STAR poll that includes the Republocratic
candidates & the Progressive candidates.

(In this election-year, Biden is winning the CIVS poll “2024 presidential
election”. Likewise in a few STAR polls. …because this year, some people
feel a desperate need to portray Biden winnable, to try to make people vote
for him in November. But ordinarily the top-finisher & CW is Jill or
Bernie…well alright, sometimes a Libertarian. Never, ever, is the
Republican anywhere but bottom.)

…& yet, people actually believe that Jill Stein couldn’t beat him. Usually
she or Bernie is CW, too-finisher in those polls.

So, the usual top-finisher can’t beat the always bottom-finisher?

Wow! What are people smoking?

Hello? The always-bottom-finisher isn’t a threat if we all vote for the
(same) candidate whom we actually all like.

Forget “The-Lesser-Evil” & “The-Two-Choices”.

In Burlington Alaska, it was clearly shown that the median-voters prefer
the more progressive candidates. …in confirmation of those poll-results.

Lesser-evils voters worry too much!!!

Okay. As I mentioned, in RCV & STV, it will be necessary to for the count
to rank those equal-ranked candidates in alphabetical-order. Is that okay?

Okay. The Democrat Party is your party vote, for the Party-PR count.

Though it would be improper for me to comment on your ballot, there’s no
rule that says I can’t comment on political-statements:

See above about the results of Condorcet & STAR polls, & what Burlington &
Alaska showed about the preference of median-voters.

Most people say (in answer to other polls) that they’re tired of
“The-Two-Choices”, & say they want different parties.

So yes the parties other than the Republocratic Party aren’t “viable”,
because only the people want them. :-)

Don’t let the TV tell you what or who is or isn’t “viable”.

Vote honestly in November, for what we all want.  …& certainly not for
someone none of us want, for whom we’d have to hold our nose.

If you’re holding your nose, reconsider your vote.

Agreed. Few people want the Republicans. They’d never win an election with
honest voting & honest count.

Look what the Democrats offer :-)

That’s viable?

..even though most people say they don’t want them?

Are the Democrats more viable than the candidates who usually win the
Condorcet & STAR polls that include the Republocrats & the Progressives?

Okay. Done. Your ballot doesn’t cast a vote in the Party-PR balloting.

You dislike all current parties? Have you read all of their platforms? If
not, how do you know you dislike them? What do you dislike about the
policies offered by some of the “3rd-parties” that you’ve heard of?

I’m not trying to get you to change your vote. That would be improper. Of
course your ballot will be counted exactly as you said.

I’m merely participating in the political-discussion.

The two parties that none of us want are the only viable ones?

Yes! We all do!

Switch between them?

Switch out of them!

I also dislike all third

All of them? Regarding the main ones you’ve heard of, which of their
platform-policies do you dislike?

Yes, that’s why we’re all here! Dislike of The Two Choices.  …which
obviously are NOT the two choices.

But which platform-policy of the main other parties that you’ve heard of do
you dislike?

If U.S. election reforms are well-designed,

Regarding the platform-policies & leaders of the parties you’ve heard of,
other than the Democrats & Republicans—what about them isn’t wise,
problem-solving?

Michael Ossipoff

On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 22:16 John T Whelan john.whelan@astro.rit.edu
wrote:

No, it just means they aren’t lesser-evil suckers.

The-Two-Choices are for the suckers who believe whatever ther TV tells them

e.g. the bizarre looney belief that two candidates & parties that none of
us want could be The-Two-Choices.

Yes, it would be better to have a better electoral system. That’s why we’re
all here.

But that doesn’t mean we have to continue to be such complete suckers now.

Michael Ossipoff

No, that breaks some axiom that I think is called Anonymity.  The method
isn't allowed to discriminate among candidates based on their on their
names.

The simplest would be to construct a random tie-breaking order and just
transfer the whole vote to whichever of the equal-ranked candidates is
highest in the order.

For Hare I consider ideal would be to first divide the vote into tied
fractions summing to 1 to order the remaining candidates and then use
that order to transfer the whole vote.

I assume in the party-PR poll we are just supposed to give our
favourite. Is that correct?

Chris B.

On 18/07/2024 3:01 pm, Michael Ossipoff wrote:

What’s your magic plan to make a third party candidate win in 2024? A plan
that doesn’t rely on unrepresentative Internet alternative method polls.

On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 1:43 AM Michael Ossipoff email9648742@gmail.com
wrote: