[EM] Poll on voting-systems, to inform voters in upcoming enactment-elections
Chris Benham
cbenhamau at yahoo.com.au
Sat Apr 6 21:47:41 PDT 2024
> But don’t you want the STAR initiative next month in Eugene, Oregon to
> pass?
Definitely not. It is a very bad method, worse than Approval.
Hare is much better, and I gather there is some prospect that Oregon
can get that.
https://fairvoteaction.org/ranked-choice-voting-could-be-coming-to-oregon/
> …&, unlike the dishonesty & fraud of FairVote, the EqualVote people
> have been honest.
If the authors of their online propaganda are honest, then they are
quite stupid and/or misguided.
Chris
On 7/04/2024 5:22 am, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
> I didn’t answer your other question:
>
>
> And surely anyone here on this list can nominate any method
> they choose (and have it accepted/acknowledged) regardless of
> whether or not the method's supporters want it nominated.
>
>
> Yes, I have to agree that that sounds fair.
>
> But don’t you want the STAR initiative next month in Eugene, Oregon to
> pass?
>
> We’re mostly Condorcetists here. STAR would finish below everything
> but IRV & Plurality. It would finish 3rd-from-bottom.
>
> The IRVists would call attention to that in Eugene.
>
> I don’t think you want that any more than I do.
>
> EqualVote has worked long & hard on that initiative.
>
> …&, unlike the dishonesty & fraud of FairVote, the EqualVote people
> have been honest.
>
> Of course anyone can nominate anything, because the poll would lose
> democratic-legitimacy & if I tried to say otherwise. But surely you
> don’t want to do that to them.
>
> Anyway, wouldn’t it be a step up, to demonstrate in Eugene that there
> are better things than Plurality?
>
>
>
> Chris Benham
>
>
> On 6/04/2024 10:46 pm, Michael Ossipoff 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
>>> <mailto: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.
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20240407/d0e4b6e9/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list