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

Sat Apr 13 10:44:07 PDT 2024

Approval, not STAR. My mistake.

On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 7:40 PM Michael Garman <
michael.garman at rankthevote.us> wrote:

> 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/20240413/44bd21c8/attachment-0001.htm>