[EM] Fwd: Election-Methods Digest, Vol 234, Issue 13

Thu Jan 11 16:32:01 PST 2024

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 16:31
Subject: Re: [EM] Election-Methods Digest, Vol 234, Issue 13
To: Sass <sass at equal.vote>

Yes, but opponents only meaningful criticism of Condorcet is about their
vulnerability to offensive strategy.

Yes, sincere top-cycles are vanishingly-rare, but a faction could make a
top-cycle by burial.

For CW,IA & MinMax(wv), & Schulze, the defensive strategy against burial is
to refuse to rank anyone whom you don’t want to be able to beat the CW by
burial.

That deters burial by making it backfire.

The beauty of the autodeterent methods is that, if it’s known that they
successfully deter offensive-strategy, then no defensive strategy is
needed, & voters have no need to not sincerely rank as many candidates as
they want to.

On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 15:30 Sass <sass at equal.vote> wrote:

> All Condorcet methods have strong strategy resistance in practice for
> public elections because public elections will almost always have a
> Condorcet Winner, and it will be difficult to predict when they won't. By
> far the most reliable strategy in practice for a public election with any
> Condorcet method is honesty.
>
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 10:45 AM <
> election-methods-request at lists.electorama.com> wrote:
>
>> Send Election-Methods mailing list submissions to
>>         election-methods at lists.electorama.com
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>
>> http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com
>>
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>>         election-methods-request at lists.electorama.com
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>         election-methods-owner at lists.electorama.com
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of Election-Methods digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>>    1. Re: Why no Condorcet proposals? (Michael Ossipoff)
>>    2. Re: Why no Condorcet proposals? (Andrew Myers)
>>    3. Autodeterrence introduction & definitions (Michael Ossipoff)
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2024 09:03:29 -0800
>> From: Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
>> To: "Bob Richard [lists]" <lists001 at robertjrichard.com>
>> Cc: election-methods at electorama.com
>> Subject: Re: [EM] Why no Condorcet proposals?
>> Message-ID:
>>         <
>> CAOKDY5Ama0gazacviJ+-8-3gsPfrr8yy3ijgB9ugeAbQPS9kXg at mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> Nanson has precedent, but it doesn?t have the simplicity of some of the
>> other Condorcet-compliant methods.
>>
>> ?& how does Nanson do by freedom from need for defensive-strategy (against
>> offensive-strategy)?
>>
>> Achieving the best strategy-free-ness is the goal of Condorcet.
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 12:08 Bob Richard [lists] <
>> lists001 at robertjrichard.com> wrote:
>>
>> > A Condorcet-compliant method, Nanson, was used in the small city of
>> > Marquette, Michigan in the 1920s. It would be very instructive to learn
>> why
>> > it was repealed. I have never seen anything more than a passing mention
>> of
>> > this episode, so this research would probably involve traveling to
>> > Marquette and rummaging around in newspaper archives, county election
>> > records and the public library. On the other hand, this part of
>> Michigan is
>> > a beautiful place to visit. Any takers?
>> >
>> > --Bob Richard
>> >
>> > ------ Original Message ------
>> > From "Michael Ossipoff" <email9648742 at gmail.com>
>> > To "EM list" <election-methods at electorama.com>
>> > Date 1/10/2024 11:34:57 AM
>> > Subject [EM] Why no Condorcet proposals?
>> >
>> > That question was recently asked.
>> >
>> > Condorcet has many versions, & there?s no agreement on that matter.
>> >
>> > So Condorcet doesn?t have any enactment-projects, or even an
>> organization.
>> >
>> > Condorcet was computationally infeasible for more than a few candidates,
>> > in the days when Hare began being adopted a century ago. Hence its
>> > particularly great unfamiliarity.
>> >
>> > Those things are regrettable, because only Condorcet can fully reassure
>> > our thoroughly-conditioned lesser-evil voters that they needn?t
>> too-vote an
>> > evil.
>> >
>> > How about proposing Condorcet in your community, & demonstrating it in
>> > various nonpolitical votes.
>> >
>> > Sometimes a city, county or state governing-body will outright enact a
>> > voting-system reform. That?s happened for RCV.
>> >
>> > ?or maybe would order & schedule a referendum, as has likewise happened
>> > for RCV.
>> >
>> > But, as a last-resort, one could advertise on bulletin-boards, online,
>> in
>> > the classifieds, etc., to convene a Condorcet enactment committee, for
>> the
>> > pursuit of an initiative.
>> >
>> > Suggest, to them, a few of the simpler & long-discussed versions, such
>> as:
>> >
>> > MinMax(wv)
>> > CW, Implicit-Approval (CW, IA).
>> >
>> > Neither needs mention of the Smith-set or cycles.
>> >
>> > Both thwart offensive-truncation, & deter burial if people use the
>> > defensive-strategy of refusing to rank anyone they don?t like & don?t
>> wish
>> > to beat the CW via burial.
>> >
>> > That committee could then conduct focus-groups, in person or online, to
>> > find out which Condorcet version would have the best chance of
>> > initiative-enactment.
>> >
>> > Obviously Approval would be the best voting-system by which for that
>> > focus-group to vote among the proposals. Participants should be asked to
>> > approve (only) the proposal(s) that they?d support in an initiative.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ----
>> > 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/20240111/8cc87b7f/attachment-0001.htm
>> >
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2024 12:12:40 -0500
>> From: Andrew Myers <acm22 at cornell.edu>
>> To: election-methods at lists.electorama.com
>> Subject: Re: [EM] Why no Condorcet proposals?
>> Message-ID: <f2adc5e2-f756-4757-aeeb-e752e34c6983 at cornell.edu>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>>
>>
>> On 1/10/24 5:07 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
>> > On 2024-01-10 21:07, Bob Richard [lists] wrote:
>> >> A Condorcet-compliant method, Nanson, was used in the small city of
>> >> Marquette, Michigan in the 1920s. It would be very instructive to
>> >> learn why it was repealed. I have never seen anything more than a
>> >> passing mention of this episode, so this research would probably
>> >> involve traveling to Marquette and rummaging around in newspaper
>> >> archives, county election records and the public library. On the
>> >> other hand, this part of Michigan is a beautiful place to visit. Any
>> >> takers?
>> >
>> > In addition, regarding Condorcet methods in actual use, Schulze has
>> > been used by a bunch of organizations, and in referenda in a Spanish
>> > city. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method#Usage
>> >
>> > My impression is that Schulze got its relatively popularity by first
>> > being adopted by technology-conscious organizations like Debian and
>> > Wikimedia, and then filtering down from there.
>> >
>> >
>> > Nanson has also been used by the University of Adelaide and the
>> > University of Melbourne. University elections aren't the same thing as
>> > public ones and the circumstances do differ, but perhaps figuring out
>> > why they were repealed there would give at least some idea?
>> >
>> > (Then again, perhaps not; see my confused surprise at the reasoning
>> > the UBC Alma Mater Society gave for abandoning Ranked Pairs.)
>> >
>> > -km
>>
>> The CIVS voting system is routinely used (and has been for years) by a
>> variety of organizations to decide leadership questions: especially
>> open-source organizations and universities. Randomly grabbing a few
>> recent ones:
>>
>> The Linux Foundation
>> OpenStack
>> Bytecode Alliance
>> Kubeflow
>> Lubuntu
>>
>> SUNY Fredonia
>> College of William and Mary
>>
>> Of course, it gets used for many other less consequential decisions,
>> with more than 35,000 polls run so far.
>>
>> The default rule CIVS uses is Minimax but it also supports Schulze and
>> other methods.
>>
>> -- Andrew
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 3
>> Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2024 13:45:16 -0500
>> From: Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
>> To: EM list <election-methods at electorama.com>
>> Subject: [EM] Autodeterrence introduction & definitions
>> Message-ID:
>>         <
>> CAOKDY5DooHE15BFdrdKWPWZ5Osfj5-_JcG6hEPjz3B2nKJuBaQ at mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> I recently posted some autodeterrence suggestions, but I didn?t
>> *introduce*
>> autodeterrence in that post, & I didn?t define my terms. So I?d like to do
>> that now:
>>
>> ?
>>
>> The only meaningful objection to Condorcet is that it?s subject to
>> offensive strategy, by ?buria? (offensive order-reversal) & by offensive
>> truncation.
>>
>> ?
>>
>> The wv Condorcet methods, such as MinMax(wv) & Schulze, thwart & deter
>> offensive-strategy as I?ve described. But, as I?ve mentioned, because I
>> regard the elections as dichotomous, I?d use wv Condorcet as Approval,
>> with
>> all-or-nothing voting, voting Unacceptables at bottom & Acceptables at
>> top?& maybe some or many lesser-evil voters would likewise vote
>> Lesser-Evil
>> at top.
>>
>> ?
>>
>> So maybe even wv Condorcet would retain some lesser-evil problem.
>>
>> ?
>>
>> That?s why autodeterrence is desirable. It probabilistically deters
>> offensive strategy by making it more likely to backfire than to succeed.
>>
>> ?
>>
>> Of course the merit of an autodeterrent method is measured by this ratio
>> of
>> probabilities:
>>
>> ?
>>
>> p(backfire)/p(succeed).
>>
>> ?
>>
>> Forest Simmons & I have proposed a number of autodeterrent methods.
>>
>> ?
>>
>> Let me state some definitions that I neglected to state before. Some are
>> already well-known, but I should state them all for completelness:
>>
>> ,,,
>>
>> CW means Condorcet-winner, a candidate who pairwise-beats each of the
>> others. Voted CW is the CW according to the ballots. Sincere CW is the CW
>> under sincere-voting.
>>
>> ?
>>
>> BF means Buriers? Favorite.
>>
>> ?
>>
>> Bus means the candidate under whom the buriers bury CW,  & who
>> consequently
>> pairbeats CW.
>>
>> ?
>>
>> CW, BF & Bus are the ?principles? of the top-cycle.
>>
>> ?
>>
>> There of course can be more than one Bus, because the CW could be buried
>> under several candidates who all pairbeat hir.
>>
>> ?
>>
>> wv means winning-votes.  ?the number of voters who vote for the defeater
>> over the defeated in a pairwise-defeat.
>>
>> ?
>>
>> lv means losing-votes, the number of voters who vote for the defeated over
>> the defeated in a pairwise-defeat.
>>
>> ?
>>
>> Pairwise-support for X means the number of voters voting X over Y in a
>> pairwise defeat of one over the other.
>>
>> ?
>>
>> A candidaes? Top means the Topcount, the number of voters top-ranking hir.
>>
>> ?
>>
>> A candidates?s IA stands for Implicit-Approval, which means the number of
>> voters ranking hir.
>>
>> ?
>>
>> A candidate?s Mid stands for Midcount, which means IA minus Topcount.  Mid
>> is relevant because, though IA is relevant, Top is unaffected by
>> offensive-strategy, & therefore spoils the usefulness of IA as a clue.
>>
>> ?
>>
>> However Top is still a clue, because it suggests who is likely CW.
>>
>> ?
>>
>> The Clues are the quantities that are used as indicators of who is the
>> Bus.
>> They consist of Top, Mid, Borda, lv & wv..& maybe others.
>>
>> ?
>>
>> The ?Uses? are ways of using some of the clues to judge who is probably
>> the
>> Bus.
>>
>> ?
>>
>> So autodeterrent methods consist of, & can be denoted as:
>>
>> ?
>>
>> Use(clue(s)).
>>
>> ?
>>
>> I listed a number of autodeterrent proposals?some mine, some Forest?s.
>>
>> ?
>>
>> GWAGL was Forest?s idea, & so was the 1st autodetrent proposal. So was
>> Mid,
>> & the use of some of the other clues.
>>
>> ?
>>
>> I should add that Borda of any kind, including Borda(<=) isn?t so useful
>> as-is, because it includes a part of the score based on Topcount.  ?&, as
>> I
>> mentioned, Topcount is unaffected by offensive-strategy & therefore
>> dilutes
>> the relevance of a clue.
>>
>> ?
>>
>> ?&, contrary to what I suggested before, Borda, by itself, wouldn?t do.
>> Borda(=<)would result in lesser-evil voters top-ranking an evil.
>>
>> ?
>>
>> So, as a clue, not as a stand-alone method, better would be Borda minus
>> its
>> Topcount part.  ?or, better yet, just use Mid instead of Borda.  ?for when
>> only the top-cycle is looked-at, where (as is most likely) the one or more
>> cycles only consist of 3 candidates.
>>
>> ?
>>
>> There?s no need to repeat my previous listing of autodeterrent proposals,
>> because, other than what I?ve said in this post, I?m not making any change
>> in those already-listed proposals.
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: <
>> http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20240111/012cf0aa/attachment.htm
>> >
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Subject: Digest Footer
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Election-Methods mailing list
>> Election-Methods at lists.electorama.com
>> http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> End of Election-Methods Digest, Vol 234, Issue 13
>> *************************************************
>>
> ----
> 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/20240111/a7525dbe/attachment-0001.htm>