[EM] (16) APR: Steve's short 16th dialogue with Richard Fobes (Steve)

[Richard Fobes]

Steve, in your latest message (copied below) you ask several questions 
for which you want a yes or no answer, but your introductory wording 
includes the word "not," which results in questions that are double 
negatives.  Plus, some of your questions are worded as if they are a 
single question, yet actually they are multiple questions.  Here are my 
answers.

VoteFair Ranking takes place during one day for the primary election, 
and another (separate) day for the general election.

When you read my book, pay close attention to the election that Arnold 
Schwarzenegger won to become governor of California.  That was a special 
election that did not have a primary.  As a result, there were more than 
100 candidates on the ballot competing in a single race for governor. 
This demonstrates the essential role of primary elections.

One of the weaknesses of your APR method is that it does not (yet) 
accommodate primary elections.  I recommend that you modify your method 
to include them.

Reading all of my book will help you understand why primary elections 
are needed in the United States.

You again ask about wasted votes (although without using that term).

For VoteFair Ranking, the worst-case scenario can produce up to 49 
percent wasted votes.

For comparison, your APR method can produce up to 90 percent wasted votes.

Of course both methods can achieve zero percent wasted votes in the 
best-case scenarios.

For VoteFair Ranking, the typical real-world range of wasted votes would 
be about between 30 percent and 15 percent.  This is an estimate.

For your APR method, the typical real-world range of wasted votes would 
be about between 30 percent and 10 percent.  This too is an estimate.

Regarding another question you have, if VoteFair Ranking were used to 
elect representatives in the state of California, a voter would only 
choose among candidates running in their district, yet a vote for a 
non-winning candidate still influences the results in two or three 
additional ways -- which you will read about in my book.

One of your questions includes the use of the word "guaranteed," but 
voting methods never offer guarantees.  For example, in your APR method 
there are no guarantees that an elected politician will vote in the 
legislature in the ways that are hoped for by the person who gives their 
"vote" to that politician.

Generally speaking, predictability is as close to a guarantee as 
politics can produce.  I would argue that VoteFair Ranking increases the 
predictability of how elected politicians will vote during legislative 
decisions.  Yes, this same claim can be made by your APR method.

Finally, I recommend that you read my book -- Ending the Hidden 
Unfairness in U.S. Elections -- carefully.  I have densely packed lots 
of information and important insights into the book, yet hopefully 
without undermining easy readability.

Those insights include explanations that account for why it would be 
impossible for the U.S. Constitution to be amended to accommodate your 
APR method for use in electing members of Congress.

That's all I have time for now.

P.S. Thank you Kristofer for correcting Steve about the correct name of 
VoteFair Ranking.

Richard Fobes


On 3/26/2015 10:05 AM, steve bosworth wrote:
> (16) APR: Steve's short 16th dialogue with Richard Fobes (Steve)
>
>>  From: election-methods-request at lists.electorama.com
> From: ElectionMethods at VoteFair.org
>
>>  Subject: Election-Methods Digest, Vol 129, Issue 12
>>  To: election-methods at lists.electorama.com
>>  Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 09:14:18 -0700
>
> To Richard and others,
>
> I have just now downloaded your “Ending the Hidden ...”
> book.Consequently, I think it would be more efficient if I plan to reply
> to the most recent additions you have made to our 15^th dialogue only
> after reading this book.
>
> Still, please help me focus my careful study of your book by saying if
> you believe it should make it clear to me why you agree or disagree with
> each one of my following current understandings of your FairVote
> counting system.You may want simply to say “yes”when you see one of the
> following understandings is correct, and “no” when you do not.It would
> not even be theoretically possible for FairVoting:
>
> 1)to elect California’s legislative assembly by all of its citizens in
> one day, i.e. with each citizen having the opportunity to rank as few or
> as many candidates in the whole state as she might wish (yes/no);
>
> 2)to allow each elector to guarantee that her one vote will continue to
> count in the assembly through the elected candidate (i.e. rep) she
> ranked most highly (yes/no);
>
> 3)to allow each of these reps to have a weighted vote exactly equal to
> the number of electors throughout California who had similarly ranked
> him most highly (yes/no); and,
>
> 4)given a suitable US constitutional amendment, also to allow such a
> voting system to elect all 435 congresspersons, i.e. each citizen also
> being allowed to rank candidates in states other than the one in which
> she resides (yes/no).
>
>
> Steve
>