[EM] Poll on voting-systems, to inform voters in upcoming enactment-elections
Chris Benham
cbenhamau at yahoo.com.au
Sun Apr 7 06:51:07 PDT 2024
> Never buy a fraudulently-promoted product.
It is sometimes important to buy the better product, regardless of how
it is promoted.
Say for example you are in the market for a family car. The promoters of
one tell you that
in their car all its occupants have say a 99% chance of surviving an
accident (when it's really
only 90%) while the promoters of a competitor honestly admit that in
their car you chance
of surviving an accident is only say 70%.
Which car do you buy?
In this case of STAR versus Hare, the relative merits are accessible via
not-too-deep thought
experiments.
One is much older than its current promoters and been relatively widely
used for a longish time,
while the other has just been cooked up as a "modern method" by people
who tell us that they
are "experts" and that we can trust their "computer simulations".
Chris
On 7/04/2024 4:05 pm, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 6, 2024 at 21:47 Chris Benham <cbenhamau at yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
> But better than count-fraud.
>
> Of course I prefer Approval to STAR.
>
>
>
> Hare is much better, and I gather there is some prospect that
> Oregon can get that.
>
>
> At first I thought that might be a good thing, until I found out that
> the IRVist-organizations aren’t willing to come-clean & choose honesty.
>
> Never buy a fraudulently-promoted product.
>
> Did you hear that, Oregon & Nevada?
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> They’re younger. FairVote is just outright dishonest.
>
>
> 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/20240407/1d2420ef/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list