[EM] Symmetric ICT reformulation and exploration

[Michael Ossipoff]

Speaking of candidate-participation methods, Steve Eppley proposed the
simplest one: the Candidate Withdrawal option.

When the count result is announced, any candidate has 24 hours in which to
announce hir withdrawal from the election, and call for a re-count with hir
deleted from the ballots.

An IRVist objected to that, because withdrawal betrays the candidate's
voters.  Ok, then add a rule that a winning candidate can't withdraw :^)

The candidate withdrawal option would completely save IRV from its problem.
Candidate-withdrawal should be offered as an amendment to IRV proposals,
and also to already-enacted IRV.

But, just looking at IRV, the circumstances for wanting to withdraw (Your
voters let the CWv get eliminated, by ranking hir 2nd instead of 1st, and
hir votes transferred the other way) seem so well-defined and specific as
to suggested an automated candidate-withdrawal, built into the IRV
count-rule.

How about saying that, when that happens, the count rule will delete the
1st choice that is in the way of the eliminated CWv being at the top of the
rankings that didn't help CWv because they ranked hir 2nd, and their vote
never got to hir?   ...followed by a 2nd count without the deleted 1st
choice?

...or it could be an option for the voter to choose if s/he wants that
deletion and re-count to occur if hir 1st choice eliminates a CWv,
resulting the election of someone over whom you ranked the CWv.   ...where,
without that 1st choice, the CWv would have won.

That option would only apply to the first election result, and not to
subsequent ones.

The method could be called "Automatic Strategic Dropping"

Or, IRV with that option could be called "Auto-Revotable IRV".

I don't like the name IRV. Its meaning isn't a good description. RCV is
even worse, because _every_ rank-balloting method is RCV.

I'd like to rename IRV as "Delete Least Favorite", "Delete Least Top",
"Eliminate Least Favorite" or "Eliminate Least Top".

That would be DLF, DLT, ELF, or ELT.  How about ELF?

That name goes with my brief definition of the IRV count:

Repeatedly, delete from the rankings the candidate currently topping fewest
rankings.

[end of definition of ELF definition]

If that action is repeated, it will eventually leave only one un-deleted
candidate.

So "Auto-Revotable Eliminate Least Favorite"?

Michael Ossipoff





On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 6:57 PM, Forest Simmons <fsimmons at pcc.edu> wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 9:29 PM, Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Yes, it would make sense, and be interesting for a voting-system reform
>> proposal to include CVT in its list of offered methods. Offer a complete
>> variety, and let the initiative committee &/or the public choose. The
>> addition of CVT would greatly broaden the variety. So the list could be:
>>
>> Approval
>> Score
>> Bucklin
>> MDDTR
>> CVT
>>
>> Actually, it might be best to include IRV, with a fair assessment of its
>> advantages & disadvantages, so that people won't think that IRV is being
>> prejudcially ignored, and so as to answer, in advance, any arguments from
>> FairVote.
>>
>> Michael Ossipoff
>>
>> I agree, IRV should be included for the reasons you suggest.
>
> Also, I think that the inclusion of a NOTA (none of the above) option on
> the ballot should be a part of the CTV suggestion:  If NOTA gets the
> highest total it means that too few of the voters trust the competence and
> integrity of their favorites to act as proxies for them.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20161114/3ad77b82/attachment.htm>