[EM] Poll on voting-systems, to inform voters in upcoming enactment-elections

Sat Apr 6 13:44:49 PDT 2024

 I also nominated STAR earlier but I think I'm blocked by Michael. Someone might want to convey the point below to him as well (about overestimating the influence of this poll). I also previously nominated Smith//Score (elect the score winner of the Smith set), so if someone is able to get that added, I would be grateful.
Toby
    On Saturday, 6 April 2024 at 16:44:00 BST, Michael Garman <michael.garman at rankthevote.us> wrote:  

 >> what if it finishes low here? That would be worse for the Eugene initiative than not including it.

I thought this poll was meant to be an objective search for the truth, not a cudgel to advance an agenda. I also think you’re vastly overestimating the influence this little poll is going to have. 
In any case, I’m nominating STAR. Someone please relay the message to Ossipoff as I believe he’s blocked me. 
Michael J. Garman | he/him

Digital & Campus Organizer | Rank the Vote

Book a meeting with me!

(401) 644-4108 | michael.garman at rankthevote.us

On Sat, Apr 6, 2024 at 2:16 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com> wrote:

This is to acknowledge the nominations of Smith//Default-Approval, Smith//Explicit-Approval, Margins-Sorted Approval, & Smith//DAC.
I’d say include STAR, because that’s what its advocates would want.  …or would they? Its enactment is going to be voted-on in Eugene next month, & what if it finishes low here? That would be worse for the Eugene initiative than not including it.
Of course showing voters about methods’ popularity here is my stated-purpose for the poll, & the fact that it’s about to be voted on for enactment would seem to suggest including it. 
But the advocates of STAR have been working hard, completely in good faith, & STAR is a lot better than IRV. Those are two good reasons to let EqualVote decide on STAR’s inclusion in the poll.
I’ll ask the EqualVote group, & go by what they say.
(In fact STAR, while more complicated than Approval, has nothing like the amount of count-complexity of Condorcet, or the consequent amount of count-insecurity & count-fraud vulnerability. I personally don’t propose STAR, because I regard it as an inbetween compromise between Approval & the ranked-methods, & I want the absolutely minimal. (I only propose Condorcet to jurisdictions where people insist on rankings.) …but, by my simplicity-standard, STAR scores high, even though I don’t propose it.)
So the nominations list so-far is now (listed in order of nomination):
ApprovalRP(wv)SchulzeIRVPluralityMinMax(wv)BlackBaldwin BenhamWoodallSchwartz-WoodallSmith//Approval (of all ranked)Smith//Approval (of what is specified)Margin-Sorted ApprovalSmith//DAC

On Sat, Apr 6, 2024 at 04:03 Chris Benham <cbenhamau at yahoo.com.au> wrote:

 I would like to nominate several methods.

 Smith//Approval (Ranking):

 Voters rank from the top only those candidates they "approve", equal-ranking allowed,
 the most approved member of the voted Smith set wins.

 Smith//Approval (specified cutoff):

 Voters rank from the top however many candidates they wish and can also specify an approval
 cutoff/threshold. Default approval is only for candidates ranked below no others (i.e. ranked top
 or equal-top).
 The most approved member of the Smith set wins.

 Margins Sorted Approval (specified cutoff):

 Voters rank from the top however many candidates they wish and can also specify an approval
 cutoff/threshold. Default approval is only for candidates ranked below no others (i.e. ranked top
 or equal-top).

 A Forrest Simmons invention. Candidates are listed in approval score order and if any adjacent pairs
 are pairwise out of order then this is corrected by flipping the out-of-order pair with the smallest
 margin. If there is a tie for this we flip the less approved pair. Repeat until there are no adjacent pairs
 of candidates that are pairwise out of order, then elect the highest-ordered candidate.

 Smith//:DAC

 Voters rank from the top however many candidates they wish, equal-ranking allowed.
 Eliminate candidates not in the Smith set and then apply Woodall's Descending Acquiescing Coalitions method.

 There is a method I hate that is apparently contending in the real world: "STAR". Given the stated purpose of 
 this poll, is there a case for including it?

 Chris Benham

Michael Ossipoff email9648742 at gmail.com
 Wed Apr 3 22:13:28 PDT 2024 

  EM used to do a lot of polls, but now never does. So I wouldn’t propose
one, if it weren’t for the fact that, this year, the voters of at least two
states are going to vote on whether to enact a certain voting-system.

It seems to me—tell me if I’m wrong—that those people have a right to know
how people familiar with voting-systems feel about the relative merits of
some voting-systems.

So, though I claim that polls are valuable for demonstrating the experience
of using the voting systems, & how they work, & what they’ll do—& are
therefore useful & worthwhile for their own sake—this poll that I now
propose isn’t a poll for its own sake.

It is, as I said, proposed for the important practical purpose of letting
the voters in the upcoming enactment-elections know how we feel about the
relative merits of some voting-systems, including the one that they’re
about to vote on the enactment of.

The voting-method for the poll:

It seems to me that Schulze is the most popular ranked voting-system, among
the people at EM.

…& it seems to me that the last time we voted on EM’s collective favorite
voting-system, Approval won.

Those seem the top-two, in EM popularity. 

----
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info

----
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20240406/81762d44/attachment.htm>