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

[Michael Ossipoff]

On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 1:57 PM Kristofer Munsterhjelm <km_elmet at t-online.de>
wrote:

> On 2024-04-05 16:03, Filip Ejlak wrote:
> > First thing: it's surprising how all the options that have been
> > mentioned are single-winner methods, despite the poll subject not being
> > worded in such a restrictive way. Are multi-winner options allowed as
> > well, or should this be a different poll? Because it needs to be said
> > that _every legislative election needs proportional representation_. I
> > guess any single-winner method, no matter how good, will be bad in
> > comparison with a PR method. So if multi-winner options were allowed in
> > the poll, I would nominate *STV *(a Condorcet-compliant variant would be
> > better if there was any polynomial one with good recognition; an
> > optional indirect element - like GVT, but strongly improved - would also
> > be nice).
>

I answered this post, but let me repeat that the poll that I propose is
purely a single-winner method poll. Yes, PR would be better for a national
government, but that's illegal for the U.S. Congress, &, even at
state-level, PR is more difficult to enact, due to its being a bigger &
more drastic change. Yes it should be part of proposal-packages, but
single-winner proposals are a lot more promising for sooner results.



> >
> > And speaking of single-winner methods, in my opinion *Woodall* and
> > *Benham* seem to be the best, at least among the well-known ones. While
> > Woodall (especially Schwartz Woodall) is perhaps marginally better,
> > Benham is so easy to explain (and it's a very obvious/natural way to
> > make IRV actually good) that it should be seriously considered by voting
> > reform campaigners. So I'd like to nominate these two.
>
> That nomination has been acknowledged & included in a nomination-list
update.


> I agree: if the poll is primarily meant to be about single-winner
> methods, it would still be useful to have a "use multiwinner PR instead"
> option, to see how well it would do compared to the single-winner methods.
>
>
This poll has enough alternatives already, without including PR. PR should
be the subject of a separate poll.  I proposed this single-winnner methods
poll because single-winner methods are about to be voted on for enactment.



> I'd also suggest the following methods:
>
> Majority Judgement (as a category; includes usual judgement etc.)
> Approval with manual runoff (since it has seen actual use)
> Copeland//Borda (proposed by Equal Vote)
>

Alright, we've now all heard those 3 nominations, & of course those 3
methods are automatically alternatives in the poll-voting as soon as the
nomination is posted.

>
> and to echo Joshua Boehme, I'd also like to know what it's a poll of:
> the theoretically best method, the one with best chance of passing a
> reform effort, most bang for the buck, or something else?
>

Good point. I was meaning to clarify that. This poll is intended to be
about merit-in-use. ...disregarding winnability & proposability.  ...but
taking into account strategy-problems,, expense of implementation, expense
& difficulty of administration, complexity & consequent insecurity of
count, & consequent count-fraud vulnerability.   So, it's about
merit-in-use, in all its aspects.

Of course we don't rate those various merit-in-use considerations in the
same order.


>
> On an aside, STV with ranked pairs elimination is not too bad a polytime
> Condorcet-reducing STV method IMHO. RP's LIIA compliance reduces the
> chaos you would otherwise get from elimination. It tends to have
> somewhat of a center bias within the "clusters" (solid coalitions
> entitled representation by Droop proportionality), but that might not be
> too bad if it deters extremist kingmaker scenarios.
>         (You'd do a ranked pairs election every time you've elected
> someone and
> eliminated him from the ballots, then eliminate from the RP loser up
> until someone exceeds the quota, then elect him, distribute surpluses,
> and do a new RP election, and so on.)
>

Wow. Maybe great performance-merit, but that's only part of merit-in-use.
There's also implementation cost & difficulty, administration cost &
difficulty, & anti-count-fraud audit9ng difficulty. I don't suppose a
handcount-audit would be very feasible. That's why I prefer the
ultra-simple Party-List solution. It's the reason why, among the 2/3 of the
world's countries that use PR, nearly all of them use Party-List instead of
STV.

Party-List PR allocations, with open or closed lists, can be done at any
kitchen-table where there's a hand-calculator, or even a pencil & paper.
...& can be implemented at zero expense. No new balloting-equipment. No
need for software for its easy & short allocation-calculation.

...& if the Party-List allocation rules (SL, DH, etc.) are considered too
complicated, then there's always SNTV, which trades voter-convienience for
the most absolute simplicity of rules.

But PR is currently illegal for Congress here, &, even at state-level, will
take longer to get, because it's a bigger change from the status-quo.
Soon-ness of change is really important, giving special importance to
single-winner reform.

Anyway, someone could propose a PR poll, after this single-winner methods
poll has been counted & its resultls posted.

-km
> ----
> 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/20240406/3fbdd44b/attachment.htm>