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

[Michael Ossipoff]

On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 21:20 Chris Benham <cbenhamau at yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>
> It can be difficult to be sure what is "propose-able" in the US and what
> isn't (especially from outside
> of it.)   Sometimes relatively complicated things seem to catch on while
> no-one seems to be excited
> about Approval.
>
Relatively complicated things like what? The most complicated thing that’s
been “catching on” IRV. I used quotes because I’ve heard that few
understand it. Progressive political parties, & some progressives like it
because FairVote’s  if spending can buy a lot of success. It has nothing to
do with merit or understandability.

To catch on without FairVote’s humungous spending would require genuine
understandability & simplicity. FairVote got IRV adopted in 2 states… in 35
years.

:-D  …not much to show f 35 years.

If Approval enactment projects had started at the same time, with equal
funding, or even a lot less, it would by now be in use in all 50 states.

…& you mustn’t believe that EM’s complicated methods aren’t more
complicated than IRV.  :-)



>
> I am not sure if  Margins Sorted Approval (specified) is "unproposably
> complex" or not.
>
I assure you that it is.


> I suspect Smith//DAC might be, but I don't know.
>
You’re right; it is.


>
> My three favourites with a big emphasis on simplicity and general
> "bang-for-buck" are:
>
> Smith//Approval (Ranking)
>
> Hare  (unrestricted and uncompelled strict ranking)
>
> Approval
>

👍👍🏆🏆

Two excellent ones, out of three, isn’t bad at all.


>
> And my least preferred by those criteria include:
>
> STAR
>
> Approval with top-two manual Runoff
>
> Majority Judgement (and other Median Ratings methods)
>
I wouldn’t propose any of those.

>
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> *Kristofer Munsterhjelm* km_elmet at t-online.de
> <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=%3C0f3688fb-e2c1-8618-f5fe-091cc3fc5cea%40t-online.de%3E>
> *Fri Apr 12 16:05:24 PDT 2024*
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> On 2024-04-12 22:37, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
> >* Right!! That’s something I wanted to say. I’m removing Schulze from the
> *>* upper part of my ranking for that reason, & replacing it with
> *>* Smith//Approval(implicit).
> *> >* How about we say to rank in order of overall merit for public
> *>* proposal…which includes proposability?
> *> >* Then the unproposably complex methods could be left unranked or ranked
> *>* near bottom.
> *> >* Or take it a step further & trim the candidate-set to only include
> *>* proposable methods? But might it be quicker to just let that be a voting
> *>* judgment, instead of having to do that evaluation as a separate
> *>* preliminary collective evaluation, which would delay the voting?
> *
> I would prefer that the merit question for the poll stays the same:
> "which voting methods do you prefer to which others?", i.e. ranking them
> in preference.
>
> Then it would be up to the individual voter to consider what aspects of
> the method are most important; and anyone who wants to use it to guide
> reform can just screen away the unproposable methods.
>
> After all, we have to do that anyway, because it's pretty much
> impossible to collapse disparate concerns into a single order without
> making some assumptions about which concerns are most important. Would I
> recommend Benham ahead of Schulze? Well, that depends on whether there's
> tons of strategy in the place in question and whether they (and I) can
> accept the nonmonotonicity.
>
> In the absence of any such situational information, any order will be
> imperfect. In any case, if the poll's output ranking ends up being like
>
> Extrinsic Borda-Weighted Landau Intersection > Iterative Refinement
> Keener + Sinkhorn (mean) > Schulze > RP > Approval > IRV,
>
> then it's a simple matter for reformers to just discard everything above
> Schulze (or RP) for a public proposal. In practice, I doubt the exotic
> methods will rank that high anyway.
>
> -km
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20240412/be1f6206/attachment-0001.htm>