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

[Michael Ossipoff]

Oops!!! Toby forgot to say what conditions he was referring to.

Bias-Free is entirely unbiased, without conditions.

I propose Saint-Lague (SL), because of its natural intuitive obviousness, &
it’s near-unbias.

Bias-Free (BF) is a refinement that I’d offer as a possibility for later.

On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 06:04 Toby Pereira <tdp201b at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> It is worth noting that the method Ossipoff declares to be "bias free" is
> only so under a very specific set of assumptions.
>
> Toby
>
> On Monday 15 July 2024 at 04:38:35 BST, 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 - 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/20240716/0957b737/attachment.htm>