[EM] Condorcet meeting
Richard Lung
voting at ukscientists.com
Tue Aug 29 23:44:11 PDT 2023
An Australian recently said that only in the lower house elections using
Alternative Vote are all the candidates to be preferenced. But this does
mean that you may have to elect your direct opponent. I think it was Bob
Ritchie who (rightly) objected to this. An official government video
over-looked this travesty merely pointing to those poor bastards in the
UK and USA who only have an x marks the spot vote (a bullet vote).
Some electoral experts have not taken kindly to my pointing out that my
invention of Binomial STV prevents the Australian travesty of electoral
justice, because last preferences count against. as much as first
preferences count for, a candidate.
Regards,
Richard Lung.
On 30/08/2023 02:41, Forest Simmons wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2023, 11:32 AM Colin Champion
> <colin.champion at routemaster.app> wrote:
>
> Asking what's wrong with bullet voting is equivalent to asking
> what's wrong with FPTP.
>
>
> Not so. What's wrong with FPTP is that it ONLY allows bullet voting.
> Big difference!
>
> Allowing bullet voting is not the same as requiring it. Even IRV
> allows bullet voting ... as it should. Nothing wrong with it. If lots
> of people want to bullet vote, go ahead and try to persuade them
> otherwise ... if you know somebody worthy of their vote ... but not to
> just vote for the sake of voting ... vote for candidates that inspire
> you by their honesty and wisdom ... not by their refurbished recycled
> slogans or lame claims to lesser evilism.
>
> In Australia truncation is not permitted. Ask Chris Benham where that
> leads!
>
> The answer is not that it subverts the system, but that it
> withholds information the system would use to good effect. The
> whole of ranked voting theory is based on exploiting the
> information which bullet-voters withhold.
>
>
>
> I think Chris's summary of how his system might work is fair.
> Supporters of minor parties give their first preferences
> accordingly, and compromise with a mainstream candidate for their
> second preferences. Supporters of mainstream parties (the
> majority) bullet vote. They don't consider the merits of
> little-known alternatives because it's too much effort, and
> because minor parties get squeezed out by the election method in
> any case. This is very much like PR based on plurality (with a
> little compromising thrown in), and unlike PR by STV except
> insofar as FPTP is its limiting case.
> But if this summary is pessimistic, voters might indeed fill in
> ranked preference ballots to a reasonable depth. In this case, it
> seems to me that they're being put to unconscionable lengths for
> what is only a primary, and they have no way of knowing where to stop.
> Such criticisms are futile unless it's possible to do better;
> but I had hoped that my own method was better, in that it achieved
> roughly the benefits of voting to depth four at roughly the cost
> of voting to depth one.
> CJC
>
> On 28/08/2023 21:09, C.Benham wrote:
>>
>> Forest,
>>
>> Why not? If that's what they want to do I can't see any problem.
>>
>> Given that we have LNHarm no voter has any particular incentive
>> to bullet vote,
>> and only those voters who are confidant that their favourite can
>> make the IRV last
>> N (or only care about getting their favourite elected) will have
>> incentive to not bother
>> indicating any lower preferences.
>>
>> Some of the voters will be concerned that their favourite won't
>> squeeze in to the
>> IRV last N, so they'll give one or two lower preferences so that
>> their single vote
>> can be transferred. This will likely include some who wouldn't
>> bother doing that if
>> they weren't honouring preference-swap deals.
>>
>> Chris B.
>>
>> On 29/08/2023 3:18 am, Forest Simmons wrote:
>>> Well, that wouldn't work so well if everybody bullet voted.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 28, 2023, 10:24 AM Forest Simmons
>>> <forest.simmons21 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> For practical purposes, this appeals to me the most so far.
>>>
>>> But the question remains about how to determine the number N.
>>>
>>> Why not just use the number ranked (or approved, as the case
>>> may be) on the average primary ballot?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Aug 27, 2023, 12:42 PM C.Benham
>>> <cbenham at adam.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I am strongly of the view that the best practical way to
>>> narrow down the field of candidates in one big open primary
>>> to N candidates should be to just use strict ranking
>>> ballots with voters able to rank as many or as few
>>> candidates as they like,
>>> and just select the IRV (aka STV) last N candidatesI
>>>
>>>
>>> I worry that if the use of approval ballots for this
>>> purpose is promoted, the powers-that-be won't be
>>> interested in anything
>>> more complicated than "just select the N most approved
>>> candidates" and (if the election is for an important
>>> powerful office)
>>> we will be left with N corporatist clones.
>>>
>>> In say the US presidential election, there is (or can
>>> be) quite a bit of time and campaigning between the
>>> primary election and
>>> the main general election, so I don't think it matters
>>> much if candidates without much "approval" in the
>>> primary make it on to
>>> the ballot for the final general election.
>>>
>>> Chris Benham
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> *Forest Simmons*forest.simmons21 at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:election-methods%40lists.electorama.com?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BEM%5D%20Condorcet%20meeting&In-Reply-To=%3CCANUDvfr_qEUF%3DTUVz%3DNP-rt5OkgtkV7VCoOHHeZvmxCwW90vag%40mail.gmail.com%3E>
>>>> /Sat Aug 26 15:03:20 PDT 2023/
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> I
>>>> The choice of n should be flexible enough that if two candidates both had
>>>> more than 70 percent approval, and nobody else got more than 49 percent,
>>>> then n should be only two.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps every finalist should have at least 71 percent (about root .5) of
>>>> the approval of the candidate with the most approval opposition to the max
>>>> approval candidate.
>>>>
>>>> That 71 percent parameter is open to adjustment .
>>>>
>>>> The idea is that we should admit into the final stage anybody with almost
>>>> as much approval as Chris Benham's max approval opposition challenger.
>>>>
>>>> fws
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> ----
>> Election-Methods mailing list - seehttps://electorama.com/em for list info
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for
> list info
>
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - seehttps://electorama.com/em for list info
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20230830/76974b38/attachment.htm>
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list