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

[Michael Garman]

>> 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.

>> Electoral reform here is just starting its 2nd try (the 1st was early
20th-century). If it ever starts to take-off, there will probably be
bipartisanfederal laws to forbid it in any form anywhere.

Which is it? You can’t have it both ways.

Michael J. Garman | he/him

Digital & Campus Organizer | Rank the Vote

Book a meeting with me! <https://calendly.com/michael-j-garman>

(401) 644-4108 | michael.garman at rankthevote.us


On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 8:20 AM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> 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
>>
>>
>> ----
> 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/20240413/29e1a6e8/attachment-0001.htm>