[EM] Hey guys, look at this...

[Richard, the VoteFair guy]

On 2/21/2023 7:39 PM, Forest Simmons wrote:
 > Instead of just top two score runoff ... extend it to a runoff between
 > the score winner and the champion from below ... not just the score
 > winner from below ... but the winner from below determined (recursively)
 > by the same method .... i.e. Sequential Pairwise Elimination in disguise
 > ... a very respectable method with a long and hoary tradition behind it
 > in deliberative assemblies .. Robert'sRules of Order and the like.

The concept of "recursively" would be very difficult to explain to most 
voters.  (Many voters think that IRV/STV's transfer of votes is too 
complex and possibly unfair.)

IMO the concept of "recursive" is even harder to explain than "pairwise" 
(even if the word itself is avoided).

 > Why have the STAR folks stubbornly dug in their heels with a clone
 > dependent version when one simple change would make it both Condorcet
 > efficient and clone-independent?

I believe part of their stubbornness comes from their initial belief 
that IRV was the only way to count ranked choice ballots.  It's 
understandable that they strongly dislike IRV (after they understood it, 
which came after their initial enthusiasm for IRV).  It's mystifying as 
to why they didn't realize there are lots of better ways to count ranked 
choice ballots.

IMO both the STAR organization and the FairVote organization suffer as a 
result of being led by people who do not fully understand mathematics. 
In both cases they later worked with math-savvy experts, but only if 
that math-savvy expert was willing to go along with the 
already-established method.  The two leaders are slowly learning the 
relevant math, but alas only after doing lots of money-backed promotion 
for inferior counting methods.

I do agree with the fans of STAR voting that a voter should be allowed 
to mark two or more candidates at the same preference level.

Currently I'm trying to educate local election officials that IRV can 
count those marks.  And that this counting can be done without using 
fractions.  (Simply "pair up" equivalent ballots, and distribute those 
ballots in "whole" equal numbers to the same-ranked candidates.)

If the Portland (Oregon) elections in 2024 do count such marks -- 
instead of discarding them as "overvotes" -- then I'll know my local 
education efforts have been fruitful.  I have my fingers crossed.

Richard Fobes
The VoteFair guy
(not to be confused with the other Richard in this forum)


(In the title I'm hoping that "guys" is intended to be the 
gender-neutral version of this word to cover the election-method experts 
who are female.)


On 2/21/2023 7:39 PM, Forest Simmons wrote:
> Why have the STAR folks stubbornly dug in their heels with a clone 
> dependent version when one simple change would make it both Condorcet 
> efficient and clone-independent?
> 
> Instead of just top two score runoff ... extend it to a runoff between 
> the score winner and the champion from below ... not just the score 
> winner from below ... but the winner from below determined (recursively) 
> by the same method .... i.e. Sequential Pairwise Elimination in disguise 
> ... a very respectable method with a long and hoary tradition behind it 
> in deliberative assemblies .. Robert'sRules of Order and the like.
> 
> The manual version is more laborious than the manual version of full 
> runoff ... so it never got into large public elections.
> 
> Ironically, the instant version of SPE is much easier than IRV 
> ...precinct summable, etc ...but it's hard to break old habits of thought.
> 
> -Forest