[EM] I now propose a mock 2012 presidential election, by parties instead of candidates.

[David L Wetzell]

I think if you're going to assess election rules based on real world
practice, you gotta have realistic conditions... and you gotta include
IRV3/AV3.  I promise you that in the real world, it'd do just as realistic
as a lot of the other more complicated rules would.

dlw

On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 5:26 PM, <
election-methods-request at lists.electorama.com> wrote:

> Send Election-Methods mailing list submissions to
>        election-methods at lists.electorama.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>
> http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com
>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>        election-methods-request at lists.electorama.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>        election-methods-owner at lists.electorama.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Election-Methods digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. I now propose a mock 2012 presidential election, by parties
>      instead of candidates. (MIKE OSSIPOFF)
>   2. Re: I now propose a mock 2012 presidential election,      by
>      parties instead of candidates. (Ted Stern)
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: MIKE OSSIPOFF <nkklrp at hotmail.com>
> To: <election-methods at electorama.com>
> Cc:
> Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 21:56:54 +0000
> Subject: [EM] I now propose a mock 2012 presidential election, by parties
> instead of candidates.
>
> I've long advocated that you can't adequately discuss the relative merits
> or desirability of
> voting systems without actually using them.  ...without actually trying
> them out. For that,
> it's absolutely essential to do polling, simulated political elections,
> using the methods that are
> proposed at EM.
>
> You don't know the problems of methods that you consider best, until you
> use them in
> an election, even if a simulated election.
>
> Therefore, I propose a simulated presidential election. Mainly because we
> don't know who
> the 2012 nominations will be yet, I suggest that the voting be by party,
> instead of by
> candidate. In some ways, that's more meaningful anyway, because policy
> platforms are,
> or should be, the basis of political voting.
>
> Some have claimed that we should do polling at external websites,
> automated websites. The
> main problem with that is flexibility: EM polls have nearly always
> included balloting by Approval,
> Score Voting, and ranking. And they always should, because all of those
> balloting modes are
> used by some of the various methods proposed on EM. My poll includes all
> three of those
> balloting modes...three separate ballots: Approval, Score, and rank.
>
> Another problem with automated polling websites is ballot-stuffing.
> Even though polling websites usually register voters by their
> e-mail, that only reduces, but doesn't eliminate the possibility of
> ballot-stuffing. Of course that
> problem isn't as important in a poll whose only purpose is to demonstrate
> what it's like to use
> the various voting systems. But, arguably, it still matters, for the
> purpose of such polls, that the
> observed result reliably reflect the 1-per-voter ballots.
>
> This poll could be criticized because EM's membership is international,
> and I'm proposing a
> simulated U.S. election. I invite non-U.S. members to vote in this poll,
> because its purpose is
> merely to demonstrate the use of the proposed voting systems.
>
> If poll-participants identify themselves, in parenthesis as
> "international" or "U.S.", then separate
> election results can be determined, one of which would indicate what kind
> of a party is
> the EM international winner, and the other of which would indicate which
> kind of party would
> win in the U.S. if EM members are typical.
>
> ...And EM members are more typical than some might believe, in terms of
> their sincere
> preferences. I'd suggest that EM members differ from the general public
> mostly in that they
> aren't Republocrat lesser-of-2-evils voters. Even if some EM members
> actually prefer
> the Republicans or Democrats, none will favor one of those parties only as
> a lesser-evil.
>
> Strategy? I suggest that any strategy used in this simulated election be
> appropriate to the
> EM electorate. If you perceive any difference between the EM electorate
> and the general
> population, then base your strategy on the EM electorate. It makes a poll
> more realistic
> if voting is based on the conditions in the poll.
>
> Should Score voting be sincere, or should it be however you'd vote it in
> an actual public
> political election? I suggest the latter.
>
> Sure, with an Approval balloting, it could be argued that there's no need
> for Approval
> strategy in Score voting, so the Score voting should be sincere,
> regardless of whether
> you'd rate sincerely in an actual election.  I and others have made that
> suggestion in
> previous EM polls.
>
> But I don't think that's best in this poll. The purpose of this poll is to
> try out the various
> methods, not to determine the sincere Score winner among the EM
> electorate. So I
> suggest voting the Score ballot exactly as you would if it were an actual
> public political
> election, in which Score voting were the only kind in use.
>
> Unless Warren argues for suggesting sincere ratings on the Score ballot, I
> suggest
> voting the same ratings you'd vote in an actual public political Score
> election. Because
> we want to simulate an actual election.
>
> As you know, I advocate, as options in an Approval balloting, the
> following ways of
> voting:
>
> Approval, MTA, MCA, ABucklin, AOC, MTAOC, MCAOC, and AOCBucklin.
>
> I'll define these ways of voting in a subsequent posting.
>
> But I'll briefly outline their definitions here:
>
> You know what Approval, MTA and MCA are.
>
> AOC is Approval, with the option to make some approvals conditional upon
> mutuality, as defined
> by the MTAOC pseudocode program that I posted here.
>
> MTAOC and MCAOC are MTA and MCA with that conditionality option.
>
> AOCBucklin is ABucklin with that option at each rank position.
>
> When there are ballots using the ABucklin &/or AOCBucklin option, the
> election is equivalent to
> an ABucklin election, and is counted as such. Of course an Approval ballot
> counts as an ABucklin
> ballot that only gives first preferences.
>
> MCA and MTA are counted in the obvious way that I previously described,
> consistent with and
> compatible with Approval and ABucklin.
>
> All of the above remains true when ballots also use the conditionality
> option.
>
> For AOCBucklin, all votes that have been assigned to a candidate, other
> than 1st preference votes,
> come under the term "middle ratings", for the purposes of MTAOC
> conditionality.
>
> For AOCBucklin, the conditionality calculations must be done anew after
> each AOCBucklin vote-assignment
> stage.  That's because the new vote assignments change the middle ratings
> counts that the MTAOC
> conditionality calculation uses.
>
> Voting instructions:
>
> For the Approval election:
>
> You can vote a ballot by:
>
> Approval, MTA, MCA, ABucklin, AOC, MTAOC, MCAOC, or AOCBucklin.
>
> If you choose an Approval ballot, approve whichever candidate(s) you
> choose to. You have the option of
> designating any of those approvals as conditional. That indicates that you
> don't want that approval to be
> usable to defeat your approved candidates. You give it conditional upon
> its being reciprocated as defined
> in the MTAOC program pseudocode that I posted. (More about the
> conditionality option later in this posting).
>
> If you choose an MTA or MCA ballot, then you rate some candidates then
> indicate that you rate
> some candidates "top" and some candidates "middle". As with Approval, you
> can indicate that some
> of your middle ratings are conditional, meaning that you don't want them
> to be usable to defeat your
> coalition-suitable candidates (defined later in this posting). And, as
> said before, that guarantee is carried
> out by making that middle rating conditional upon reciprocity as defined
> in the MTAOC program pseudocode.
>
> If you choose an ABucklin ballot, then rank any number of candidates in
> order of preference. At any rank
> position, you can indicate, for any candidate, that your vote for hir is
> conditional, as defined above.
>
> Every method with more than two slots can benefit by AERLO, the Automatic
> Equal Ranking Line Option.
>
> To use AERLO in MTA or MCA, list your middle-rated candidates vertically
> in order of preference, with "AERLO" written just
> below the lowest-ranked one that you want to be protected by the AERLO
> option.
>
> In ABucklin, write AERLO just below the lowest rank position that you want
> to protect with AERLO.
>
> What it means when you have AERLO in your ranking, or your middle MTA or
> MCA ratings:
>
> If none of your above-AERLO candidates wins, then they are all moved to
> top-rating or top-ranking. Another
> count is conducted after that raising-to-top has done on each such ballot.
> That winner of that 2nd count
> wins the election.
>
> For example, an AOCBucklin ballot with AERLO might look like this:
>
> 1. Candidate A
> 2. Candidate B
> AERLO
> 3. Candidate C
> 4. Candidate D (conditional)
>
> The conditionality option, should you invoke it, requires that a middle
> rating be mutual as defined
> in the MTAOC program pseudocode. That program refers to candidates whom
> you designate
> "coalition-suitable". You don't have to actually make those designations.
>
> The default "coalition-suitable" designation is: Your above-AERLO
> candidates are coalition-suitable.
> If you don't use AERLO, then your top-rated or top-ranked candidates are
> coalition-suitable.
>
> That's the default.
>
> But, if you want to, you could specify that you only want your _initially_
> top-rated candidates to be
> coalition-suitable.
>
> Or you could even designate particular candidates as candidate suitable,
> if you choose to. Doing so means
> that you aren't using the default assumption.
>
> But you needn't bother with that, because there is a useful and practical
> default assumption, stated above.
>
> For the Score election:
>
> Rate the parties as you would in an actual public election. If you
> strategize, do so with respect to the
> actual EM electorate.
>
> (unless Warren asks that people rate sincerely, with strategy only in the
> Approval election rather than in the
> Score election)
>
> For the ranking election:
>
> Best to rank sincerely. Anyone can count the rankings by any method they
> choose. I'll count them
> by MMPO with AERLO. No need to count them by AOCBucklin or ABucklin, since
> that way of voting is
> included as an option in the Approval election.
>
> Also, because the rankings election is intended to be method-nonspecific,
> it's best to count it be methods
> that don't require much other than just a ranking. Count methods with
> drastic voting strategy aren't
> desirable count methods, of course.
>
> I suggest that the AERLO option should be available for the rank election,
> because AERLO is useful in pretty
> much every rank method that allows equal ranking. I consider MMPO with
> AERLO to be a good method, and, if there
> is participation in this mock election, I'll do an MMPO with AERLO count
> for the ranking election.
>
> Voter's Choice:
>
> Though this is not the purpose of this mock election, it's possible to
> determine an overall winner, by Voter's Choice:
>
> When you vote, designate a method. Your designated method could be
> Approval, or Score, or any rank-count.
>
> After the counts are completed, each political party receives a score
> equal to the sum of the numbers of people
> designating the methods by which that party won.
>
> The winning party is the one with the highest such score.
>
> (MTA, MCA, ABuckliln, AOC, MTAOC, MCAOC and AOCBucklin don't count as
> separate election methods, as they are only
> voting options for the approval election).
>
> Nominations:
>
> Every election should have a nomination period. I suggest a one-week
> nomination period.
>
> I don't know how you feel about having a campaign period, because maybe
> this list shouldn't
> have political advocacy. If people feel that there should be no
> campaigning, no discussion of the
> parties' relative merits, then that's fine.
>
> If people feel that such discussion is appropriate for an election, then
> there could be a week set aside
> for it, after the nominations week.
>
> I suggest that nominations can be made any time starting right now, and
> continuing till 0 hours, 1 minute
> GMT (UT), January 15th.
>
> I'll just start by making a few obvious nominations. Nominating a party
> doesn't mean that the nominator
> likes it. It might just be that (as in the case of some that I nominate)
> those parties are just felt to be
> ones that would be found in an actual election, and are nominated for that
> reason only.
>
> Of course no one needs to rank or rate all of the parties nominated.
>
> With that understanding, I nominate the following parties, listed in
> alphabetical order, to avoid
> the appearance of favoritism:
>
> Boston Tea Party (not to be confused with the Republican-like "Tea Party
> Movement")
> Democrats (moderate) (example: Mondale)
> Democrats (Republican-like) (example: Lieberman)
> Democrats (relatively progressive) (example: Kuccinich)
> Greens/Green Party USA (G/GPUSA) (The original U.S. Greens)
> Green Party US (GPUS)  (The replacement Greens)
> Libertarians (as defined by the Libertarian platform on the Internet)
> Republicans (Moderate)
> Republicans (More Republican)
> Socialist Party USA (SPUSA)
>
> That seems to roughly span the political spectrum among the U.S. political
> parties.
>
> Of course you might want to look up those parties' platforms on the
> Internet.
>
> Also useful, though biased, might be the "directory of U.S. political
> parties" on the Internet.
>
> (I'm not quite sure how its name is worded, but the above name will
> probably find it at a
> search engine).
>
> By the way, what if I throw a party and no one comes? Or propose an
> election and no
> one participates? I feel that mock elections are much needed at a voting
> system discussing
> mailing list. I'm doing my part by proposing this mock election. That's so
> regardless of whether
> anyone else thinks there should be a mock election, and regardless of
> whether anyone
> participates. My purpose is merely to propose the election, make it
> available. Having done so,
> I've done my part.
>
> Mike Ossipoff
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Ted Stern <araucaria.araucana at gmail.com>
> To: election-methods at lists.electorama.com
> Cc: Ted Stern <araucaria.araucana at gmail.com>
> Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 15:26:18 -0800
> Subject: Re: [EM] I now propose a mock 2012 presidential election, by
> parties instead of candidates.
> Hi Mike,
>
> May I suggest that you also include a 3-slot ballot option?  I.e.,
> Preferred, Acceptable, Reject.  You could call it a Fallback Approval
> ballot if you like.
>
> Many methods (e.g., most Condorcet methods, ER-Bucklin) that don't
> meet the Participation criterion will do so when restricted to
> 3-slots.  It would be interesting to compare behavior with that level
> of compression.
>
> Ted
>
> On 06 Jan 2012 13:56:54 -0800, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
> >
> > I've long advocated that you can't adequately discuss the relative
> merits or
> > desirability of
> > voting systems without actually using them.  ...without actually trying
> them
> > out. For that,
> > it's absolutely essential to do polling, simulated political elections,
> using
> > the methods that are
> > proposed at EM.
> >
> > You don't know the problems of methods that you consider best, until you
> use
> > them in
> > an election, even if a simulated election.
> >
> > Therefore, I propose a simulated presidential election. Mainly because
> we don't
> > know who
> > the 2012 nominations will be yet, I suggest that the voting be by party,
> > instead of by
> > candidate. In some ways, that's more meaningful anyway, because policy
> > platforms are,
> > or should be, the basis of political voting.
> >
> > Some have claimed that we should do polling at external websites,
> automated
> > websites. The
> > main problem with that is flexibility: EM polls have nearly always
> included
> > balloting by Approval,
> > Score Voting, and ranking. And they always should, because all of those
> > balloting modes are
> > used by some of the various methods proposed on EM. My poll includes all
> three
> > of those
> > balloting modes...three separate ballots: Approval, Score, and rank.
> >
> > Another problem with automated polling websites is ballot-stuffing.
> > Even though polling websites usually register voters by their
> > e-mail, that only reduces, but doesn't eliminate the possibility of
> > ballot-stuffing. Of course that
> > problem isn't as important in a poll whose only purpose is to
> demonstrate what
> > it's like to use
> > the various voting systems. But, arguably, it still matters, for the
> purpose of
> > such polls, that the
> > observed result reliably reflect the 1-per-voter ballots.
> >
> > This poll could be criticized because EM's membership is international,
> and I'm
> > proposing a
> > simulated U.S. election. I invite non-U.S. members to vote in this poll,
> > because its purpose is
> > merely to demonstrate the use of the proposed voting systems.
> >
> > If poll-participants identify themselves, in parenthesis as
> "international" or
> > "U.S.", then separate
> > election results can be determined, one of which would indicate what
> kind of a
> > party is
> > the EM international winner, and the other of which would indicate which
> kind
> > of party would
> > win in the U.S. if EM members are typical.
> >
> > ...And EM members are more typical than some might believe, in terms of
> their
> > sincere
> > preferences. I'd suggest that EM members differ from the general public
> mostly
> > in that they
> > aren't Republocrat lesser-of-2-evils voters. Even if some EM members
> actually
> > prefer
> > the Republicans or Democrats, none will favor one of those parties only
> as a
> > lesser-evil.
> >
> > Strategy? I suggest that any strategy used in this simulated election be
> > appropriate to the
> > EM electorate. If you perceive any difference between the EM electorate
> and the
> > general
> > population, then base your strategy on the EM electorate. It makes a
> poll more
> > realistic
> > if voting is based on the conditions in the poll.
> >
> > Should Score voting be sincere, or should it be however you'd vote it in
> an
> > actual public
> > political election? I suggest the latter.
> >
> > Sure, with an Approval balloting, it could be argued that there's no
> need for
> > Approval
> > strategy in Score voting, so the Score voting should be sincere,
> regardless of
> > whether
> > you'd rate sincerely in an actual election.  I and others have made that
> > suggestion in
> > previous EM polls.
> >
> > But I don't think that's best in this poll. The purpose of this poll is
> to try
> > out the various
> > methods, not to determine the sincere Score winner among the EM
> electorate. So
> > I
> > suggest voting the Score ballot exactly as you would if it were an actual
> > public political
> > election, in which Score voting were the only kind in use.
> >
> > Unless Warren argues for suggesting sincere ratings on the Score ballot,
> I
> > suggest
> > voting the same ratings you'd vote in an actual public political Score
> > election. Because
> > we want to simulate an actual election.
> >
> > As you know, I advocate, as options in an Approval balloting, the
> following
> > ways of
> > voting:
> >
> > Approval, MTA, MCA, ABucklin, AOC, MTAOC, MCAOC, and AOCBucklin.
> >
> > I'll define these ways of voting in a subsequent posting.
> >
> > But I'll briefly outline their definitions here:
> >
> > You know what Approval, MTA and MCA are.
> >
> > AOC is Approval, with the option to make some approvals conditional upon
> > mutuality, as defined
> > by the MTAOC pseudocode program that I posted here.
> >
> > MTAOC and MCAOC are MTA and MCA with that conditionality option.
> >
> > AOCBucklin is ABucklin with that option at each rank position.
> >
> > When there are ballots using the ABucklin &/or AOCBucklin option, the
> election
> > is equivalent to
> > an ABucklin election, and is counted as such. Of course an Approval
> ballot
> > counts as an ABucklin
> > ballot that only gives first preferences.
> >
> > MCA and MTA are counted in the obvious way that I previously described,
> > consistent with and
> > compatible with Approval and ABucklin.
> >
> > All of the above remains true when ballots also use the conditionality
> option.
> >
> > For AOCBucklin, all votes that have been assigned to a candidate, other
> than
> > 1st preference votes,
> > come under the term "middle ratings", for the purposes of MTAOC
> conditionality.
> >
> > For AOCBucklin, the conditionality calculations must be done anew after
> each
> > AOCBucklin vote-assignment
> > stage.  That's because the new vote assignments change the middle ratings
> > counts that the MTAOC
> > conditionality calculation uses.
> >
> > Voting instructions:
> >
> > For the Approval election:
> >
> > You can vote a ballot by:
> >
> > Approval, MTA, MCA, ABucklin, AOC, MTAOC, MCAOC, or AOCBucklin.
> >
> > If you choose an Approval ballot, approve whichever candidate(s) you
> choose to.
> > You have the option of
> > designating any of those approvals as conditional. That indicates that
> you
> > don't want that approval to be
> > usable to defeat your approved candidates. You give it conditional upon
> its
> > being reciprocated as defined
> > in the MTAOC program pseudocode that I posted. (More about the
> conditionality
> > option later in this posting).
> >
> > If you choose an MTA or MCA ballot, then you rate some candidates then
> indicate
> > that you rate
> > some candidates "top" and some candidates "middle". As with Approval,
> you can
> > indicate that some
> > of your middle ratings are conditional, meaning that you don't want them
> to be
> > usable to defeat your
> > coalition-suitable candidates (defined later in this posting). And, as
> said
> > before, that guarantee is carried
> > out by making that middle rating conditional upon reciprocity as defined
> in the
> > MTAOC program pseudocode.
> >
> > If you choose an ABucklin ballot, then rank any number of candidates in
> order
> > of preference. At any rank
> > position, you can indicate, for any candidate, that your vote for hir is
> > conditional, as defined above.
> >
> > Every method with more than two slots can benefit by AERLO, the
> Automatic Equal
> > Ranking Line Option.
> >
> > To use AERLO in MTA or MCA, list your middle-rated candidates vertically
> in
> > order of preference, with "AERLO" written just
> > below the lowest-ranked one that you want to be protected by the AERLO
> option.
> >
> > In ABucklin, write AERLO just below the lowest rank position that you
> want to
> > protect with AERLO.
> >
> > What it means when you have AERLO in your ranking, or your middle MTA or
> MCA
> > ratings:
> >
> > If none of your above-AERLO candidates wins, then they are all moved to
> > top-rating or top-ranking. Another
> > count is conducted after that raising-to-top has done on each such
> ballot. That
> > winner of that 2nd count
> > wins the election.
> >
> > For example, an AOCBucklin ballot with AERLO might look like this:
> >
> > 1. Candidate A
> > 2. Candidate B
> > AERLO
> > 3. Candidate C
> > 4. Candidate D (conditional)
> >
> > The conditionality option, should you invoke it, requires that a middle
> rating
> > be mutual as defined
> > in the MTAOC program pseudocode. That program refers to candidates whom
> you
> > designate
> > "coalition-suitable". You don't have to actually make those designations.
> >
> > The default "coalition-suitable" designation is: Your above-AERLO
> candidates
> > are coalition-suitable.
> > If you don't use AERLO, then your top-rated or top-ranked candidates are
> > coalition-suitable.
> >
> > That's the default.
> >
> > But, if you want to, you could specify that you only want your
> _initially_
> > top-rated candidates to be
> > coalition-suitable.
> >
> > Or you could even designate particular candidates as candidate suitable,
> if you
> > choose to. Doing so means
> > that you aren't using the default assumption.
> >
> > But you needn't bother with that, because there is a useful and practical
> > default assumption, stated above.
> >
> > For the Score election:
> >
> > Rate the parties as you would in an actual public election. If you
> strategize,
> > do so with respect to the
> > actual EM electorate.
> >
> > (unless Warren asks that people rate sincerely, with strategy only in the
> > Approval election rather than in the
> > Score election)
> >
> > For the ranking election:
> >
> > Best to rank sincerely. Anyone can count the rankings by any method they
> > choose. I'll count them
> > by MMPO with AERLO. No need to count them by AOCBucklin or ABucklin,
> since that
> > way of voting is
> > included as an option in the Approval election.
> >
> > Also, because the rankings election is intended to be
> method-nonspecific, it's
> > best to count it be methods
> > that don't require much other than just a ranking. Count methods with
> drastic
> > voting strategy aren't
> > desirable count methods, of course.
> >
> > I suggest that the AERLO option should be available for the rank
> election,
> > because AERLO is useful in pretty
> > much every rank method that allows equal ranking. I consider MMPO with
> AERLO to
> > be a good method, and, if there
> > is participation in this mock election, I'll do an MMPO with AERLO count
> for
> > the ranking election.
> >
> > Voter's Choice:
> >
> > Though this is not the purpose of this mock election, it's possible to
> > determine an overall winner, by Voter's Choice:
> >
> > When you vote, designate a method. Your designated method could be
> Approval, or
> > Score, or any rank-count.
> >
> > After the counts are completed, each political party receives a score
> equal to
> > the sum of the numbers of people
> > designating the methods by which that party won.
> >
> > The winning party is the one with the highest such score.
> >
> > (MTA, MCA, ABuckliln, AOC, MTAOC, MCAOC and AOCBucklin don't count as
> separate
> > election methods, as they are only
> > voting options for the approval election).
> >
> > Nominations:
> >
> > Every election should have a nomination period. I suggest a one-week
> nomination
> > period.
> >
> > I don't know how you feel about having a campaign period, because maybe
> this
> > list shouldn't
> > have political advocacy. If people feel that there should be no
> campaigning, no
> > discussion of the
> > parties' relative merits, then that's fine.
> >
> > If people feel that such discussion is appropriate for an election, then
> there
> > could be a week set aside
> > for it, after the nominations week.
> >
> > I suggest that nominations can be made any time starting right now, and
> > continuing till 0 hours, 1 minute
> > GMT (UT), January 15th.
> >
> > I'll just start by making a few obvious nominations. Nominating a party
> doesn't
> > mean that the nominator
> > likes it. It might just be that (as in the case of some that I nominate)
> those
> > parties are just felt to be
> > ones that would be found in an actual election, and are nominated for
> that
> > reason only.
> >
> > Of course no one needs to rank or rate all of the parties nominated.
> >
> > With that understanding, I nominate the following parties, listed in
> > alphabetical order, to avoid
> > the appearance of favoritism:
> >
> > Boston Tea Party (not to be confused with the Republican-like "Tea Party
> > Movement")
> > Democrats (moderate) (example: Mondale)
> > Democrats (Republican-like) (example: Lieberman)
> > Democrats (relatively progressive) (example: Kuccinich)
> > Greens/Green Party USA (G/GPUSA) (The original U.S. Greens)
> > Green Party US (GPUS)  (The replacement Greens)
> > Libertarians (as defined by the Libertarian platform on the Internet)
> > Republicans (Moderate)
> > Republicans (More Republican)
> > Socialist Party USA (SPUSA)
> >
> > That seems to roughly span the political spectrum among the U.S.
> political
> > parties.
> >
> > Of course you might want to look up those parties' platforms on the
> Internet.
> >
> > Also useful, though biased, might be the "directory of U.S. political
> parties"
> > on the Internet.
> >
> > (I'm not quite sure how its name is worded, but the above name will
> probably
> > find it at a
> > search engine).
> >
> > By the way, what if I throw a party and no one comes? Or propose an
> election
> > and no
> > one participates? I feel that mock elections are much needed at a voting
> system
> > discussing
> > mailing list. I'm doing my part by proposing this mock election. That's
> so
> > regardless of whether
> > anyone else thinks there should be a mock election, and regardless of
> whether
> > anyone
> > participates. My purpose is merely to propose the election, make it
> available.
> > Having done so,
> > I've done my part.
> >
> > Mike Ossipoff
> >
> >
> > ----
> > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list
> info
>
> --
> araucaria dot araucana at gmail dot com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Election-Methods mailing list
> Election-Methods at lists.electorama.com
> http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20120106/ea727539/attachment-0002.htm>