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

Sat Apr 13 10:39:18 PDT 2024

On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 03:04 Michael Garman <michael.garman at rankthevote.us>
wrote:

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

I said that it *likely* will be banned.

…after it causes concern by achieving significant success.

If so, it *would* be both: First succeeding bigtime, & then banned as a
result.

That will have to do, because I’m not going to again explain what I meant.

>
>
> 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/d1fe9c88/attachment.htm>