[EM] Poll on voting-systems, to inform voters in upcoming enactment-elections
Richard Lung
voting at ukscientists.com
Sat Apr 20 23:54:35 PDT 2024
Others have noticed the single-member bias, which reflects the
monopolistic bias of the Anglo-American system.
I agree with what you and they say. However, a Condorcet compliant
method would not be helpful. It is not only a needless complication but
a confusing one. In this I think the many official variants of STV are
right not to complicate their system with a Condorcet complication.
Their implementers may not all be entirely ignorant of the matter.
Condorcet pairing is something of a cult on this list but it was refuted
two centuries ago by Pierre Simon Laplace, because it ignored the
relative imporance of orders of preference. Borda method did not too
satisfactorily solve the matter but Gregory method, used in STV,
superseded Borda method.
No knowledgable study can be satisfied with an explanation that
contradicts itself. That is why hybrid election systems are such a bad
idea. My voting method uses one system, Meek surplus transfer for both
the election and exclusion of candidates, and follows the consequences.
The basic system (not the advanced version) is simpler, at least in
principle, than conventional STV.
This voting innovation has already been programmed. The coder had some
difficulty because he knew the conventional methods too well. Eventually
I had to say something like: Please forget about eliminating a candidate
("last past the post") when the surplus votes run out.
The list owner belatedly released my Binomial STV programmer links. But
the list owner has also stopped my two or three line reply to your
"trying to understand BSTV" subject line, as too large a post.
Regards,
Richard Lung.
On 05/04/2024 15:03, Filip Ejlak wrote:
> First thing: it's surprising how all the options that have been
> mentioned are single-winner methods, despite the poll subject not
> being worded in such a restrictive way. Are multi-winner options
> allowed as well, or should this be a different poll? Because it needs
> to be said that _every legislative election needs proportional
> representation_. I guess any single-winner method, no matter how good,
> will be bad in comparison with a PR method. So if multi-winner options
> were allowed in the poll, I would nominate *STV *(a
> Condorcet-compliant variant would be better if there was any
> polynomial one with good recognition; an optional indirect element -
> like GVT, but strongly improved - would also be nice).
>
> And speaking of single-winner methods, in my opinion *Woodall* and
> *Benham* seem to be the best, at least among the well-known ones.
> While Woodall (especially Schwartz Woodall) is perhaps marginally
> better, Benham is so easy to explain (and it's a very obvious/natural
> way to make IRV actually good) that it should be seriously considered
> by voting reform campaigners. So I'd like to nominate these two.
>
>
>
> Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, that’s true. It’s the reason why reform is needed, & the
> reforms should be compared to the worse current alternatives to
> show the need.
>
> I nominate:
>
> Approval
> RP(wv)
> Schulze
> MinMax(wv)
> IRV
> Plurality
>
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 04:06 John T Whelan
> <john.whelan at astro.rit.edu> wrote:
>
> Given the purpose of the poll, I think FPTP should also be
> included, since that's what the real world propositions are
> presumably to replace.
>
> John Whelan
> jtw24 at cornell.edu
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Election-Methods
> <election-methods-bounces at lists.electorama.com> on behalf of
> Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 4, 2024 1:13:28 AM
> *To:* EM list <election-methods at electorama.com>
> *Subject:* [EM] Poll on voting-systems, to inform voters in
> upcoming enactment-elections
> EM used to do a lot of polls, but now never does. So I
> wouldn’t propose one, if it weren’t for the fact that, this
> year, the voters of at least two states are going to vote on
> whether to enact a certain voting-system.
>
> It seems to me—tell me if I’m wrong—that those people have a
> right to know how people familiar with voting-systems feel
> about the relative merits of some voting-systems.
>
> So, though I claim that polls are valuable for demonstrating
> the experience of using the voting systems, & how they work, &
> what they’ll do—& are therefore useful & worthwhile for their
> own sake—this poll that I now propose isn’t a poll for its own
> sake.
>
> It is, as I said, proposed for the important practical purpose
> of letting the voters in the upcoming enactment-elections know
> how we feel about the relative merits of some voting-systems,
> including the one that they’re about to vote on the enactment of.
>
> The voting-method for the poll:
>
> It seems to me that Schulze is the most popular ranked
> voting-system, among the people at EM.
>
> …& it seems to me that the last time we voted on EM’s
> collective favorite voting-system, Approval won.
>
> Those seem the top-two, in EM popularity.
>
> I prefer RP(wv) to Beatpath, mostly for its simple,
> intuitively natural & obvious rule, but also for its LIIAC
> compliance, & the fact that its winner usually pairbeats
> Schulze’s winner.
>
> But I guess Schulze is more popular due to its more efficient
> algorithm.
>
> Anyway so I suggest that the poll I propose have a Schulze
> balloting & count, & an Approval balloting & count.
>
> Voting would consist of posting a ranking & an approval-set,
> in one post.
>
> Candidate voting-systems:
>
> My purpose isn’t an all-inclusive poll among all proposed
> voting-systems. …just a very few ones that are the most
> popular here at EM, solely to have a little comparison to the
> main voting system being publicly voted on this year.
>
> So it should just be among a few voting-systems. Additionally,
> no reason to make the alternatives-lineup too time-consumingly
> large by including methods unlikely to win anyway.
>
> I’ll suggest a few obvious inclusions. But, of course every
> poll here should have the possibility of nomination of
> whatever alternative anyone wants to nominate.
>
> I’ll list my nominations in this post, & I claim that those
> few are all the alternatives needed for the poll. …& anyone
> can nominate anything during a 1-week nomination-period.
>
> I suggest the following voting-systems as candidates in the
> poll, the alternatives among which to vote:
>
> Approval
> RP(wv)
> Schulze
> IRV
>
> (Schulze & RP are often said to be the ranked-methods most
> popular among single-winner reform community, & that seems
> true at EM.)
>
>
> Is there any need for more alternatives than that?
>
> I suggest a nomination period of exactly one week, starting at
> the time recorded as the posting-time-&-date of this post.
>
> After which a voting-period of exactly one month would
> start…at the exact time as the end of the nomination-period.
>
> If there are no nominations (I suggest that none are needed)
> during the nomination-period—& if, during the
> nomination-period, no one posts the words “I second the
> suggestion of a poll”—then of course there’d not be a poll.
>
> Again, I realize that polls are no longer popular here, but
> this is a special situation, bringing a need for voters in the
> upcoming public enactment-election to have a chance to hear
> how people at EM feel about relative merit among
> voting-systems. So let’s make an exception to the absence of
> polls here, for voters in the next election.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for
> list info
>
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - seehttps://electorama.com/em for list info
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20240421/f58363c4/attachment.htm>
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list