[EM] Poll-proposal: Presidential (ranks). STV (3 seats). Party-PR (500 seats)

[Chris Benham]

I nominate two more candidates for the presidential poll:

Claudia De La Cruz  (Party for Socialism and Liberation)

Peter Sonski    (American Solidarity Party)

And a candidate for the party-PR election:

African People's Socialist Party

Chris B.

On 15/07/2024 1:19 pm, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
> I omitted the Republican Party. Obviously that’s one that could be 
> voted-for.
>
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2024 at 20:37 Michael Ossipoff 
> <email9648742 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>     There was interest in a poll about PR. But I feel that first the
>     PR methods should be tried, used,  in a poll with the actual
>     candidates & parties.
>
>     As I mentioned before, there’s no substitute for the experience of
>     actually using the electoral methods in polls. You don’t know the
>     methods until you use them.
>
>     So I propose a 3-part poll.  …presidential & PR:
>
>     1.  A Condorcet presidential-poll with 7 candidates + the
>     approval-line. As others have mentioned, of course it could be
>     counted by any rank-count that allows equal-ranking. But of course
>     RP(wv) won here as the most collectively popular, & so its winner
>     should be reported.
>
>     The approval-line of course would allow counting by methods that
>     use explicit-approval.
>
>     …in addition to by the zero-cost implementation method.
>
>     2. A 3-seat STV poll among the same set of candidates as in the
>     presidential-poll.
>
>     …as if we were electing a 3-person presidential triumvirate, or
>     seats in some 3-member district in which those candidates are running.
>
>     Of course the STV rankings could be counted by any STV version, &
>     integer STV is (in some ways) an easier count. But fractional STV
>     is the unarbitrary STV that doesn’t require a rule or
>     randomizing-process for the order in which ballots transfer.
>
>     Of course, because the STV doesn’t allow equal-rankin, then its
>     ballots also could & would also be counted for an RCV count.
>
>     Of course if someone wanted to vote different rankings for STV &
>     RCV, then they could write both & indicate which is which.
>
>     3. A 500-seat at-large party-PR allocation election. Of course
>     voters vote for their favorite party, & seats are allocate to the
>     parties in proportion to their votes.
>
>     Reported will be: allocations by:
>
>     Sainte-Lague, Bias-Free (Ossipoff-Agnew), d’Hondt,
>     Largest-Remainder, & Huntington-Hill (“Equal-Proportions”).
>
>     SL & BF probably won’t differ from eachother.
>
>     ————-
>
>     For the party-PR SL & BF allocation of 500 seats, the requirement
>     for a party being seated 🪑 is about 1/7 of one percent of the vote.
>
>     For the 3-seat STV allocation, the requirement is being over 1/4
>     of the vote.
>
>     ————-
>
>     SL, in actual implementations, requires .7 quotas for a party’s
>     1st seat. That’s to thwart, prevent & discourage
>     splitting-strategy, which could otherwise sometimes be
>     advantageous if the conditions were detected.
>
>     Because BF & SL give often the same allocation, then BF should
>     have that same requirement.
>
>     That’s taken into account for the abovestated requirement for a
>     party to be seated.
>
>     —————-
>
>     Candidates for presidential & STV elections:
>
>     (These listings are alphabetical.)
>
>     Joe Biden
>     RFK Jr.
>     Chase Oliver
>     Jill Stein
>     Donald Trump
>     Cornell West
>     Marianne Williamson
>     approval-line———————
>     ———————
>     Parties for party-PR election:
>
>     American Independent
>     American Solidarity
>     Constitution
>     Democrat
>     Green
>     Libertarian
>     Peace & Freedom
>     Working Family
>     —————
>     Of course if this poll is going to happen, then additional
>     nominations should be allowed. But we probably don’t need a week
>     or two for that.
>     Surely any additional nominations would be made within 2 days. So
>     let’s say that the period for optional additional nominations ends
>     exactly 48 hours after this message posts.
>
>     …& that the voting period begins at that same moment.
>
>     We don’t need a month for the voting-period, do we? Shall we say 1
>     week if there’s no electioneering, & 2 weeks if there’s
>     electioneering?
>
>     Anyone can change any of their ballots during the voting period.
>     ————
>     Of course if this poll happens, & if no one else volunteers to
>     take the responsibility of recording the ballots, then I’ll do so.
>      …then of course will unblock the people I’ve blocked, for that
>     purpose.
>     ————-
>     It goes without saying that anything about the details of this
>     poll could be objected-to, & then, if others support the
>     objection, then discussion would be called-for.
>
>     It’s always best to avoid the delay caused by a procedural vote, &
>     so hopefully there will be a consensus agreement. …or at least it
>     will be informally-obvious which position is supported or
>     acceptable to the most people, based on opinions expressed.
>
>     An RP(wv) vote would be a reluctant last-resort. Anyone could call
>     for it if consensus were adamantly refused & no position seemed to
>     clearly have more support or acceptance.
>
>     Hopefully none of that will be necessary, but it’s good to have it
>     mentioned for contingency.
>     ————-
>     As the proposer of the poll, I should vote first, immediately at
>     the beginning of the voting-period. I don’t know if anyone will
>     participate, but, because there was participation in the previous
>     poll, & because people have suggested a PR poll, & because there’s
>     no substitute for using the electoral methods…then I’ll proceed on
>     the assumption that there’s interest & that there might be
>     participation.
>
>     If the poll doesn’t happen, it won’t be because I didn’t try to
>     start it.
>
>
>
> ----
> 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/20240716/dfc104c3/attachment.htm>