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

Sat Apr 6 15:43:56 PDT 2024

Oh, sorry, I misread whom the post was from. It was originally from Garman,
not Chris.

I realize & acknowledge that STAR & Smith//Score are both nominated. Sorry
about missing that at first.

On Sat, Apr 6, 2024 at 15:32 Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I haven’t blocked you. I’ve only blocked Bristow, Garman, & Toby Pereira.
>
> I have no right to decree what can or can’t be nominated.
>
> You nominated STAR, so it’s nominated.
>
> There’s a big difference between EqualVote & FairVote. I admit that my
> intention wasn’t in keeping with objective information-sharing, but it was
> for a well-meaning reason.
>
> I’m not doing this to attack IRV. I want to expose the unpopularity of
> FairVote’s proposal. It’s not against IRV. I’ve said that Hare might work
> if it were honestly offered.  But there’s nothing honest about FairVote.
>
> Anyway I didn’t block you, & of course STAR is nominated, since you
> nominated it.
>
> Peace!
>
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 6, 2024 at 13:45 Chris Benham <cbenhamau at yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [EM] Poll on voting-systems, to inform voters in upcoming
>> enactment-elections
>> Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2024 17:42:43 +0200
>> From: Michael Garman <michael.garman at rankthevote.us>
>> <michael.garman at rankthevote.us>
>> To: Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com> <email9648742 at gmail.com>
>> CC: Chris Benham <cbenhamau at yahoo.com.au> <cbenhamau at yahoo.com.au>,
>> Kevin Venzke <stepjak at yahoo.fr> <stepjak at yahoo.fr>,
>> election-methods at lists.electorama.com
>> <election-methods at lists.electorama.com>
>> <election-methods at lists.electorama.com>
>>
>> >> 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! <https://calendly.com/michael-j-garman>
>>
>> (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):
>>>
>>> Approval
>>> RP(wv)
>>> Schulze
>>> IRV
>>> Plurality
>>> MinMax(wv)
>>> Black
>>> Baldwin
>>> Benham
>>> Woodall
>>> Schwartz-Woodall
>>> Smith//Approval (of all ranked)
>>> Smith//Approval (of what is specified)
>>> Margin-Sorted Approval
>>> Smith//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
>>>> <election-methods%40lists.electorama.com?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BEM%5D%20Poll%20on%20voting-systems%2C%0A%20to%20inform%20voters%20in%20upcoming%20enactment-elections&In-Reply-To=%3CCAOKDY5BkSGJkX%3D7zWXBr2t1SBNVMNj96wm-T8ubvr_wGM5h51w%40mail.gmail.com%3E>
>>>> *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
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20240406/19bd2630/attachment-0001.htm>