[EM] Plurality Strategy. Beatpath & Ranked-Pairs. Best Rank Methods.

[Michael Ossipoff]

 This posting discusses two topcs:

1. Voting strategy for our Plurality (Vote-For-1) elections

2. Beatpath and Ranked-Pairs.

3. Properties needed by the best ranked methods, and what those methods are.

(Topics #2 & #3 might be mixed, or not in the listed order)

Plurality Voting Strategy:
--------------------------------

I used to say that we could get immediate results, immediate
improvement, if all progressives voted the following instrumenal
strategy:

Vote the most winnable acceptable candidate.

For progressives, that means a progressive. If you've noticed
policies, then you know that that _doesn't_ include any Democrats or
Republicans.

By "progressive", I mean: Honest, ethical, non-corrupt, humane.

You won't find any Democrat candidates or office-holders who qualify.

Of course Plurality has the problem that it's necesary for
progressives to all combine their vote n the same progressive
candidate, the same most-winnable progressive. Not a problem, if we
define that as the nominee of the progressive party that got the most
votes in the most recent presidential election.

That would be the nominee of the Green Party U.S. (GPUS).

So I'd been saying that the best progressive Plurality strategy calls
for voting for the GPUS nominee.

But that's only for _strictly_ instrumental voting, for if we're
voting for _immediate_ results.

What if we don't expect immediate results?

A lot of progressives have strong preferences among the progressive
parties, and might prefer to  it out among the progressive parties
first. And, if progressives aren't going to immediately poll a
majority, then progressives can just start by voting for the nominee
of their favorite progressiveparty. That suggets this alternative
progresive Plurality strategy:

Vote for the nominee of your favorite party. If progressive votes ever
add up to a majority, then vote for the nominee of the previous
presidential election's highest-polling party.

I prefer that progressive Plurality strategy to the one that I'd
previously been suggesting. It's more in keeping with what progressive
voters prefer.

...And if we have a progressive majority, this alternative strategy
only delays the
good results by one election. A small price for its greater
flexibility and freedom, and better appeal for progressive voters.

Properties Needed For Best Voting Systems:
____________________________________

I define "[U.S.] current conditions" as disinfomational media and a
public who almost all completely believe those media.

I define "Green scenario" as open, participatory and agenda-free
media, and a public who have shown that they aren't deceived by
disinforamational media.

Of course currently the U.S. has current conditions. I can't speak for
other countries.

As I've long been saying, FBC compliance is absolutelly essential for
current conditions. I emphasize that, in previous discussions, I've
assured Kristofer and others that I don't claim that current
conditions, or the need for FBC, exist outside the U.S.

I presented a simple argument for the need for FBC under current conditions.

I showed that favorite-burial is optimal in the U.S., given voter's
beliefs under current conditions. I did _not_ say or imply that that
is true in other countries, or that it would remain true under Green
scenario conditions.

So, it seemed to me that some, including Kristofer, were arguing
against a position thaI was not taking.

Because I don't believe that the Republocrat incumbants are ever going
 allow a better voting system, I no longer believe that there's any
point in discussing voting systems for current conditions.

Instead, vote progressive, elect an honest, legitimate progressive
government, and choose a voting system optimized for Green scenario
condtions.

Due to the length of this post, I feel that I should post it now and
then resume in subsequent posts.

Michael Ossipoff



And, under Green scenario conditions, FBC wouldn't be needed. That frees us to