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

[robert bristow-johnson]

Condorcet RCV is 100% Condorcet efficient and I had already pointed out a realistic example for how STAR fails to elect the CW.Powered by Cricket Wireless------ Original message------From: Closed Limelike CurvesDate: Mon, Apr 8, 2024 01:26To: robert bristow-johnson;Cc: Chris Benham;Michael Ossipoff;election-methods at lists.electorama.com;Kevin Venzke;Subject:Re: [EM] Poll on voting-systems, to inform voters in upcoming enactment-electionsThat's it.  One-person-one-vote leads to Majority rule which leads to some Condorcet-consistent method.  I believe that this principle takes primacy over any other for deciding single-winner elections when there is no proportionality to be had.  For multi-winner elections I might be for an STV method.Then STAR should be great, since it has sky-high Condorcet efficiency. It's easily more Condorcet-efficient than approval (because of the extra runoff, which can elect a Condorcet winner in second place), and approval already tends to pick Condorcet wi
 nners in practice.I've personally got my own disagreements with STAR, but this is just bizarre. If nothing else, the lesson people will take away from comments like this is going to be "no point trying to compromise with the Condorcetists, so we might as well go back to score."On Sun, Apr 7, 2024 at 8:10 PM robert bristow-johnson <rbj at audioimagination.com> wrote:

> On 04/07/2024 9:51 AM EDT Chris Benham <cbenhamau at yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > 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 
> 

<clapping>

Chris joins Kristofer in my appreciation category.

I continue to believe that it's just more important that important principles be focused on, and I can't think of a more important principle that, when at all possible, our votes are counted equally.  That each of us voters have equal influence on government in our elections for public office.  If our votes are not counted equally, then I want my vote to count more than yours.

Then if we insist that votes count equally, then we agree that if more voters mark their ballots preferring A to B than the number of voters marking their ballots to the contrary, then when at all possible, we don't elect B.

That's it.  One-person-one-vote leads to Majority rule which leads to some Condorcet-consistent method.  I believe that this principle takes primacy over any other for deciding single-winner elections when there is no proportionality to be had.  For multi-winner elections I might be for an STV method.

--

r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj at audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

.
.
.
----
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/20240408/73158d50/attachment.htm>