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

Sat Apr 13 10:40:31 PDT 2024

Who’s going to ban it? The two-party establishment? What does it say about
STAR that in your vision they’ll still be around and powerful enough to ban
it?

On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 7:39 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> 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/20240413/466e5d91/attachment-0001.htm>