[EM] Fw: Election-Methods Digest, Vol 213, Issue 44 (3rd--subjective meaning of grades)

Fri May 6 15:00:21 PDT 2022

Thank you, Richard,

Please let me seek more clarification by responding inline below:

On 06/05/2022 12:07, Richard Lung wrote:

Thank you, Steve,

R: I don't need to deny. Categories impose meaning, the voters may not share, …

S: Because voters always have the option of imposing their own meanings on any response method any election may offers, they are free to respond (vote) in any way they might choose. As you know, after Miller, G. A. [(1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review 63 (2), 81], Balinski and Laraki decide on their six categories aiming to provide a common expressive language that can be used by all citizens. Are they mistaken in thinking that all citizens already use and have their own understandings of these six labels? As I see it, MJ and EPR simply offer six widely understood subjective judgment categories from which to choose. How can be inappropriately limiting?

R: …. and an alternative 6 orders of choice are simply not enough. That is problem enough.

S: B&L also accept that some specialists are able to distinguish between more than six levels of value. EPR only invites all citizens to use at least one of these six. Thisl allows every citizen more informatively to communicate their different subjective judgments about the different candidates than using any less publicly defined numbers could. I’m I mistaken?

R: As a rule, claims to 100% PR impose rather than elicit it.

S: Given the above, it seems to me that EPR “elicits” 100% proportional representation.

R: I have said that FAB STV uses all (100%) of the preferential information, for a complete dimension of choice.

S: Like ordinary STV, can FAB STV’s count eliminate (“exclude”) any candidate before all the winners have been determined? If so, some of the voters’ ballots could fail to assist the election of any candidate. When so, less than 100% of the votes cast are proportional represented in the council. What do you think?

R: Since elections must exclude, as well as elect, candidates, binomial STV also has a rational exclusion count. And rationally quota counting abstentions measures how much voters actually choose or reject candidates.

S: Can you easily define how an “abstention”, “exclusion”, and “how much voters actually choose or reject candidates” are “rationally” determined, or are these definitions among the elements of FAB STV’s count which you freely admit will not be fully understood by most people?

Regards,
Steve

________________________________
From: Richard Lung <voting at ukscientists.com>
Sent: Friday, May 6, 2022 10:13 AM
To: steve bosworth <stevebosworth at hotmail.com>; EM <election-methods at lists.electorama.com>
Subject: Re: Fw: [EM] Election-Methods Digest, Vol 213, Issue 44 (subjective meaning of grades)

On 06/05/2022 12:07, Richard Lung wrote:

Thank you, Steve,

I don't need to deny. Categories impose meaning, the voters may not share, and an alternative 6 orders of choice are simply not enough. That is problem enough.

As a rule, claims to 100% PR impose rather than elicit it.

I have said that FAB STV uses all (100%) of the preferential information, for a complete dimension of choice. Since elections must exclude, as well as elect, candidates, binomial STV also has a rational exclusion count. And rationally quota counting abstentions measures how much voters actually choose or reject candidates.

Regards,

Richard Lung.

On 06/05/2022 06:56, steve bosworth wrote:

________________________________
From: steve bosworth <stevebosworth at hotmail.com><mailto:stevebosworth at hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 4, 2022 11:55 PM
To: Richard Lung <voting at ukscientists.com><mailto:voting at ukscientists.com>
Subject: Re: [EM] Election-Methods Digest, Vol 213, Issue 44 (subjective meaning of grades)

Richard,

Thank you for your reply.

1) Please correct me if I’m mistaken but I don’t think you want to deny that the grades Excellent, Very Good, Good, Acceptable, Poor, and Reject are nominal, nor that they can easily be translated into an ordinal scale of 6.

2) Nor, do you deny that the six numbers that might be used by themselves would have much less meaning than these verbal grades on their own to express each citizen’s subjective evaluation of the candidates. This is not to deny that such numbers could acquire something like this clarity if and when they are explicitly defined with regard to these words, or otherwise verbally defined. Similarly, they could acquire ever clearer meanings as a result of being used for many years in a particular school or university, like letter grades from A to F are often used now.

3) It is in this subjective sense that the use of verbal grades seem to be socially more meaningful and informative than any pure numbers. Do you agree?

4) In the light of the green print on page 3 of the attachment previously sent, do you see any problem with the rules by which evaluative proportional representation (EPR) adds and subtracts all the grades given by all citizens to all candidates in order to determine which seven candidates are elected to the city council?

5) If your FAB STV method were used instead, could it match EPR’s claim of such a council proportionally representing 100% of all the votes cast?

What do you think?

________________________________
From: Richard Lung <voting at ukscientists.com><mailto:voting at ukscientists.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 4, 2022 11:31 AM
To: steve bosworth <stevebosworth at hotmail.com><mailto:stevebosworth at hotmail.com>
Cc: election-methods at lists.electorama.com<mailto:election-methods at lists.electorama.com> <election-methods at lists.electorama.com><mailto:election-methods at lists.electorama.com>
Subject: Re: [EM] Election-Methods Digest, Vol 213, Issue 44

Steve,

Thanks for reply. A basic objection to graded classes is that it takes ordered numbers to complete the transition from the classificatory scale to the ordinal scale, in S S Stevens widely accepted scales of measurement, in the sciences: nominal, ordinal, interval, ratio scales. The vote should be an ordered number vote. (Its classificatory scale is one person one vote.) The count is an interval scale and a ratio scale count.
 The ordinal scale founds, in the sciences, sufficiently advanced, an orderly transition to the two most powerful scales.
The stripped-down version of FAB STV, is simple enough to enable a Binomial STV hand count, and can elect single members, as mentioned, using a rational exclusion count, as well as a rational election count.

Regards,
Richard Lung.

On 3 May 2022, at 9:30 pm, steve bosworth <stevebosworth at hotmail.com<mailto:stevebosworth at hotmail.com>> wrote:

Re: Re: [EM] Election-Methods Digest, Vol 213, Issue 44

Richard,

Sorry, with you initially starting out with President Macron, I mistakenly responded to your argument for FAB STV as if you were proposing it as a single-winner method. However, your most recent post copied below now makes it clear that you instead see it as a superior multi-winner method. Thank you.

In this light, I would like to ask you to compare FAB STV with the multi-winner method my co-authors and I call evaluative proportional representation (EPR – https://www.jpolrisk.com/legislatures-elected-by-evaluative-proportional-representation-epr-an-algorithm-v3/). We see EPR as an improved version of ordinary STV that follows MJ by inviting citizens to rank candidates more informatively instead by grading them – grading their suitability for office as either Excellent, Very Good, Good, Acceptable, Poor, or Reject. We have also updated theabove 2020 article in a Paper that I would be happy to email to any EM reader upon request (stevebosworth at hotmail.com<mailto:stevebosworth at hotmail.com>).

I see EPR as also fully satisfying your desire to include the judgments of the whole electorate in the count to the fullest extent possible to avoid *any … minimally democratic ... binary choice* as you put it.

With regard to FAB STV, I am happy to assume that it provides this benefit much more than plurality and ordinary STV does. At the same time, please tell me how the results of an FAB STV election at-large of a seven-member city council would compare with the following results that an EPR election guarantees: every citizens’ ballot equally adds to the voting power (weighted vote) in the council of the elected candidate each sees as likely to represent their hopes and concerns most accurately. This winner will have received either this citizen’s highest grade, remaining highest grade, or proxy vote. Consequently, every citizen’s vote cast is equally represented in the council quantitatively. Exactly how EPR offers these democratic benefits is described in the above mentioned available Paper.

You (Richard) freely warn readers that most of them may not be able fully to understand the complex steps by which an FAB STV election would be counted. In contrast, my co-authors and I believe that anyone who can count, add, and subtract whole numbers will be able to understand exactly how an EPR election is counted.

I look forward to our dialogues.

Steve

________________________________
From: Richard Lung <voting at ukscientists.com>
Sent: Friday, May 6, 2022 10:13 AM
To: steve bosworth <stevebosworth at hotmail.com>; EM <election-methods at lists.electorama.com>
Subject: Re: Fw: [EM] Election-Methods Digest, Vol 213, Issue 44 (subjective meaning of grades)

On 06/05/2022 12:07, Richard Lung wrote:

Thank you, Steve,

I don't need to deny. Categories impose meaning, the voters may not share, and an alternative 6 orders of choice are simply not enough. That is problem enough.

As a rule, claims to 100% PR impose rather than elicit it.

I have said that FAB STV uses all (100%) of the preferential information, for a complete dimension of choice. Since elections must exclude, as well as elect, candidates, binomial STV also has a rational exclusion count. And rationally quota counting abstentions measures how much voters actually choose or reject candidates.

Regards,

Richard Lung.

On 06/05/2022 06:56, steve bosworth wrote:

________________________________
From: steve bosworth <stevebosworth at hotmail.com><mailto:stevebosworth at hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 4, 2022 11:55 PM
To: Richard Lung <voting at ukscientists.com><mailto:voting at ukscientists.com>
Subject: Re: [EM] Election-Methods Digest, Vol 213, Issue 44 (subjective meaning of grades)

Richard,

Thank you for your reply.

1) Please correct me if I’m mistaken but I don’t think you want to deny that the grades Excellent, Very Good, Good, Acceptable, Poor, and Reject are nominal, nor that they can easily be translated into an ordinal scale of 6.

2) Nor, do you deny that the six numbers that might be used by themselves would have much less meaning than these verbal grades on their own to express each citizen’s subjective evaluation of the candidates. This is not to deny that such numbers could acquire something like this clarity if and when they are explicitly defined with regard to these words, or otherwise verbally defined. Similarly, they could acquire ever clearer meanings as a result of being used for many years in a particular school or university, like letter grades from A to F are often used now.

3) It is in this subjective sense that the use of verbal grades seem to be socially more meaningful and informative than any pure numbers. Do you agree?

4) In the light of the green print on page 3 of the attachment previously sent, do you see any problem with the rules by which evaluative proportional representation (EPR) adds and subtracts all the grades given by all citizens to all candidates in order to determine which seven candidates are elected to the city council?

5) If your FAB STV method were used instead, could it match EPR’s claim of such a council proportionally representing 100% of all the votes cast?

What do you think?

________________________________
From: Richard Lung <voting at ukscientists.com><mailto:voting at ukscientists.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 4, 2022 11:31 AM
To: steve bosworth <stevebosworth at hotmail.com><mailto:stevebosworth at hotmail.com>
Cc: election-methods at lists.electorama.com<mailto:election-methods at lists.electorama.com> <election-methods at lists.electorama.com><mailto:election-methods at lists.electorama.com>
Subject: Re: [EM] Election-Methods Digest, Vol 213, Issue 44

Steve,

Thanks for reply. A basic objection to graded classes is that it takes ordered numbers to complete the transition from the classificatory scale to the ordinal scale, in S S Stevens widely accepted scales of measurement, in the sciences: nominal, ordinal, interval, ratio scales. The vote should be an ordered number vote. (Its classificatory scale is one person one vote.) The count is an interval scale and a ratio scale count.
 The ordinal scale founds, in the sciences, sufficiently advanced, an orderly transition to the two most powerful scales.
The stripped-down version of FAB STV, is simple enough to enable a Binomial STV hand count, and can elect single members, as mentioned, using a rational exclusion count, as well as a rational election count.

Regards,
Richard Lung.

On 3 May 2022, at 9:30 pm, steve bosworth <stevebosworth at hotmail.com<mailto:stevebosworth at hotmail.com>> wrote:

Re: Re: [EM] Election-Methods Digest, Vol 213, Issue 44

Richard,

Sorry, with you initially starting out with President Macron, I mistakenly responded to your argument for FAB STV as if you were proposing it as a single-winner method. However, your most recent post copied below now makes it clear that you instead see it as a superior multi-winner method. Thank you.

In this light, I would like to ask you to compare FAB STV with the multi-winner method my co-authors and I call evaluative proportional representation (EPR – https://www.jpolrisk.com/legislatures-elected-by-evaluative-proportional-representation-epr-an-algorithm-v3/). We see EPR as an improved version of ordinary STV that follows MJ by inviting citizens to rank candidates more informatively instead by grading them – grading their suitability for office as either Excellent, Very Good, Good, Acceptable, Poor, or Reject. We have also updated theabove 2020 article in a Paper that I would be happy to email to any EM reader upon request (stevebosworth at hotmail.com<mailto:stevebosworth at hotmail.com>).

I see EPR as also fully satisfying your desire to include the judgments of the whole electorate in the count to the fullest extent possible to avoid *any … minimally democratic ... binary choice* as you put it.

With regard to FAB STV, I am happy to assume that it provides this benefit much more than plurality and ordinary STV does. At the same time, please tell me how the results of an FAB STV election at-large of a seven-member city council would compare with the following results that an EPR election guarantees: every citizens’ ballot equally adds to the voting power (weighted vote) in the council of the elected candidate each sees as likely to represent their hopes and concerns most accurately. This winner will have received either this citizen’s highest grade, remaining highest grade, or proxy vote. Consequently, every citizen’s vote cast is equally represented in the council quantitatively. Exactly how EPR offers these democratic benefits is described in the above mentioned available Paper.

You (Richard) freely warn readers that most of them may not be able fully to understand the complex steps by which an FAB STV election would be counted. In contrast, my co-authors and I believe that anyone who can count, add, and subtract whole numbers will be able to understand exactly how an EPR election is counted.

I look forward to our dialogues.

Steve

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20220506/72f87719/attachment-0001.html>