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

[Michael Ossipoff]

On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 00:22 Michael Garman <michael.garman at rankthevote.us>
wrote:

> >> 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.
>

It isn’t one way. It’s both ways.

Approval would have had much easier, less expensive  & faster nationwide
enactment. It would take-off bigger than IRV has, & in a lot less time.

(…but yes, then *that* degree of success happens, that’s when the outlawing
is likely.)

When electoral-reform is taking-off (2 states is just a slow insignificant
beginning), there will likely be a bipartisan law outlawing  all effective
genuine electoral-reform m.

>
>
> 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/a974c37b/attachment-0001.htm>