[EM] Manipulability stats for (some) poll methods

[Michael Garman]

>> Incorrect. No one has a monopoly on big lies.

Well, that's how the term is used. That's what it's associated with. And
it's incredibly disrespectful of you to cheapen the term by using it to
refer to reformers you dislike.

>> I’ve never been to a conference with Rob Richie. :-)

So your claims about what he may or may not have said at a conference have
even less weight!

>> But, hey, maybe Michael G. has discovered a better & more accurate poll
that is widely publicly distributed & asked, but I’ve just never
encountered it.

Indeed, I have! I've shared the results on this link multiple times. Take
your head out of the sand!

On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 9:38 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 12:18 Michael Garman <
> michael.garman at rankthevote.us> wrote:
>
>> The Big Lie is used to refer to the justification for the Holocaust.
>>
>
> Incorrect. No one has a monopoly on big lies.
>
>
> “Rob Richie was mean to me at a conference in 2019.”
>>
>
> I’ve never been to a conference with Rob Richie. :-)
>
>
>
>> You lie about candidates’ favorability.
>>
>
> I reported the results of a currently ongoing poll at CIVS (google:
> Condorcet Internet Voting Service) poll titled “2024 presidential election.”
>
> …& no, I didn’t lie about the results.
>
> Michael G. says he has polls showing Trump with 45% approval. 1/3 is the
> estimate that I’ve often heard. Without wading into a thorough search, I’ll
> just say that maybe Michael G’s poll is more accurate than the estimates
> that I’ve heard.
>
> Michael G. says that his polls ask people to compare Trump & Biden to the
> “3rd-party” candidates. Fine. I’ve just never been asked such a
> poll-question, or encountered one in the mass media, or distributed by
> email, or asked on the web, to people who haven’t intentionally visited a
> polling website. Nor have I ever encountered a poll anywhere in which that
> question was asked without the Republican finishing last…losing to everyone
> else.
>
> But, hey, maybe Michael G. has discovered a better & more accurate poll
> that is widely publicly distributed & asked, but I’ve just never
> encountered it.
>
> Anything’s possible, right?
>
>
> to make your points about approval. You’re a liar. You’re no better than
>> what you claim without evidence Rob Richie did at that mystical conference.
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 9:15 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> FairVote’s intentional consistent lying about IRV’s properties was
>>> familiar & widely known & discussed in the single-winner reform community,
>>> long before Trump ran for president.
>>>
>>> In a recent discussion about FairVote’s big lie, Michael G. went through
>>> the most hilarious contortions to try to explain & justify the lie.
>>>
>>> It isn’t necessary to repeat that discussion. It’s in the archives, &
>>> most of us were here at the time.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 12:07 Michael Garman <
>>> michael.garman at rankthevote.us> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Unsubstantiated allegations of “fraud” and “lies”? Sounds like
>>>> someone’s been hitting the “Trump-blogs” again :D
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 9:02 PM Michael Ossipoff <
>>>> email9648742 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Of course I’m just guessing, but my guess is that “decapitation” is
>>>>> Closed’s new name for favorite-burial.
>>>>>
>>>>> Closed sometimes in invents new names without define them.
>>>>>
>>>>> IRV indeed shares Plurality’s need for favorite-burial
>>>>> defensive-strategy. I don’t like that, & wouldn’t propose IRV. There are a
>>>>> number of places where IRV is (the only electoral reform) up for enactment
>>>>> this year, In spite of that very  unlikeable strategy-need, I wanted to
>>>>> help campaign for its enactment, in the hope that the voters who’ve enacted
>>>>> it didn’t do so because they intend to bury their favorite, & so so won’t
>>>>> do so.
>>>>>
>>>>> But, because IRV is being fraudulently sold to them, with intentional
>>>>> lies, we can’t count on how people will vote when they find out about what
>>>>> they’ve enacted…when they find out about the lie.
>>>>>
>>>>> Therefore, regrettably, we shouldn’t support “RCV”.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 11:15 Chris Benham <cbenhamau at yahoo.com.au>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Limelike,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you please define and explain the "decapitation" strategy?   I
>>>>>> haven't heard of it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And can you elaborate a bit on this? :
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IRV is a good example of this. It's *usually* not susceptible to
>>>>>> strategy (in the IAC model), but I think of it as one of the most
>>>>>> strategy-afflicted methods on this list. It's vulnerable to some
>>>>>> particularly-egregious strategies (decapitation), ones that are complex or
>>>>>> difficult to explain (pushover), and many strategies [that?] don't have a
>>>>>> simple defensive counterstrategy available (like truncation).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Chris B.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 29/04/2024 2:31 am, Closed Limelike Curves wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Kris, thanks for the results! They're definitely interesting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That said, I'm not sure how useful a metric raw
>>>>>> probabilities provide; I don't think they provide a very strong measure of
>>>>>> how *severely* each system is affected by strategy. Missing are:
>>>>>> 1. How much do voters have to distort their ballots? Is it just
>>>>>> truncation, compression (as with tied-at-the-top), or full decapitation?
>>>>>> 2. How hard is it to think of the strategy? Counterintuitive
>>>>>> strategies (e.g. randomized strategies or pushover) require large,
>>>>>> organized parties to educate their supporters about how to pull it
>>>>>> off. This could be good or bad depending on if you like institutionalized
>>>>>> parties. Good: sometimes people can't pull it off. Bad: this creates an
>>>>>> incentive for strong parties and partisanship. See the Alaska
>>>>>> 2022 Senate race, where Democrats pulled off a favorite-betrayal in support
>>>>>> of Murkowski to avoid a center-squeeze.
>>>>>> 3. Is a counterstrategy available?
>>>>>> 4. How feasible is the strategy (does it involve many or few voters)?
>>>>>> 5. How bad would the effects of the strategy be? Borda is bad not
>>>>>> just because it's often susceptible to strategy, but because it gives
>>>>>> turkeys a solid chance of winning.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IRV is a good example of this. It's *usually* not susceptible to
>>>>>> strategy (in the IAC model), but I think of it as one of the most
>>>>>> strategy-afflicted methods on this list. It's vulnerable to some
>>>>>> particularly-egregious strategies (decapitation), ones that are complex or
>>>>>> difficult to explain (pushover), and many strategies don't have a simple
>>>>>> defensive counterstrategy available (like truncation).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A low-probability but occasionally high-impact strategy might be the
>>>>>> worst of both worlds; voters get lulled into a false sense of security by a
>>>>>> few elections where strategy doesn't matter, then suddenly find a candidate
>>>>>> they dislike elected because they failed to execute the appropriate
>>>>>> defensive strategy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----
>>>>>> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----
>>>>> 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/20240428/fa76a9b2/attachment.htm>