[EM] (28): Steve's 28th dialogue with Richard

[steve bosworth]

   1. Re: (28): Presidential Election:  Steve's 28th dialogue with Richard

      Fobes (VoteFair)



Richar wrote:

[....]

If I should find time to do any writing about election-method reform,

I'll use that time to write an article about what's going on in the U.S.

Presidential elections ....

This would be a great time to write about the link between single-mark

ballots and the crazy Presidential primary results, and the need for

better ballots and better vote-counting methods....

Richard Fobes

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hi Richard,

In your last reply, you again express your interest in writing an article on 'the need for better ballots and better vote-counting methods' for electing the President.  Perhaps your article would start with the suggestions you offer in Chapter 10 ('Presidential Smokescreen...') and in Chapter 11 ('Get Real ....') of your book (Ending the Hidden Unfairness ...).  However, before discussing those more complex suggestions, I need some clarification of your related but simpler suggestions in Chapter 17 ('What's Up Gov...')... for electing mayors and governors.

On page 5 (of Chapter 17), you say that 'VoteFair popularity ranking identifies the most popular candidate'.  Please correct me if I am mistaken in saying the following:  By using VoteFair (i.e. Kenemy), this 'most popular' winner might not have been expressly preferred even by a plurality of all the voters.  This conclusion results from the example below in which 7 candidates are running for governor.

As a result of using IRV in this extreme example, candidate F is elected with a 61% majority and with an average intensity of preference of 9.62 out of 10.  In contrast, by counting the same 100 ballots using MAM (I assume the result would be the same using VoteFair), candidate E is elected with the explicit support of only 39% and with an average intensity of preference of 9.28.

If this is correct, your 'most popular' winner would have been explicitly support by only 39%.  Therefore, would it not be better to use a form of IRV?  Am I mistaken?

I hope you can find the time to respond.

Best regards,

Steve

Example:

100 citizens vote to elect one winner.  They rank the 7 candidates as follows:

IRV COUNT

100 CITIZENS RANK CANDIDATES EFGKMNP AS FOLLOWS:


38


23


25


9


5


F


G


E


M


K





F





N


P











E


E






COUNT USING IRV


FIRST


38


23


25


9


0


0


5





F


G


E


M


N


P


K


SECOND


38


23


25


9


0


5


ELIMINATE


THIRD


38


23


30


9


0


ELIMINATE





FOURTH


38


23


30


ELIMINATE


9








FIFTH


38


23


39





ELIMINATE








SIXTH


61


ELIMINATE


39

















WINNER






















Using IRV, F wins with a 61% majority, and with a preference intensity of 9.62 out of 10.

Note:  Separately, I have already emailed to Richard a copy of the exact calculations which discovered E as the MAM winner having only 39% of the expressed preferences and having an average intensity of support of 9.28 out of 10.  These and other relevant passage are print in green within Appendix 4 ('Comparing Rival System') to my article: 'Super Equality for Each Citizen's Vote in the Legislature'.  I would be happy to send this appendix (and/or article) to anyone who requests this (stevebosworth at hotmail.com).

.+++++++++++++++++++++++

On 2/19/2016 11:47 AM, steve bosworth wrote:

> [EM] (27) APR: Steve's 27th dialogue on NUTS with Richard Fobes

>>  Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 23:48:29 -0800

>>  From: ElectionMethods at VoteFair.org

>>  To: election-methods at lists.electorama.com

>>  CC: stevebosworth at hotmail.com

>>  Subject: Re: [EM] (26) APR: Steve's 26th dialogue with Richard Fobes

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20160530/b0a6b293/attachment-0001.htm>