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

[Michael Garman]

Would it be in use, or would it be banned? Can’t be both! :-D

On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 11:57 AM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> 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/d160663b/attachment.htm>