[EM] Poll Ballot

[Michael Ossipoff]

One reason for my voting 1st is to demonstrate what I mean by the
voting-instructions:

Condorcet candidate ranking:

Jill Stein
Claudia de la Cruz
Cornell West
Marianne Williamson
Peter Sonsky
————approval-line———-
================
STV & RCV ranking:

(You could write separate rankings for STV & RCV if you wish. I’m voting
the same ranking for both.)

Jill Stein
Claudia de la Cruz
Cornell West
Marianne Williamson
Peter Sonsky
———-approval-line———-
RFK Jr
Joe Biden
Chase Oliver
=============
Party PR vote:

Green Party

==========

A few comments:

In the Condorcet ballot, I defensively-truncated, ranking only those whom I
approve…in order to get the benefit of RC(wv)’s Minimal-Defense compliance.
————
Of course in RCV there’s no reason to not rank everyone. In fact there are
two reason why I ranked all:

1.  Of course the worst is a bit worse than the 2nd-worst, & there’s no
reason to not express that.

2. But my main reason, the important reason, is that people who really want
to maximally help Lesser-Evil beat Greater-Evil wii have no reason to not
sincerely rank progressives (if they prefer them) over Lesser-Evil…if
progressives have *assured & promised* them that they’ll rank Lesser-Evil
over Greater-Evil.

Then those voters will know that, even if all the progressive candidates
get eliminated, their vote will end up with Lesser-Evil, & so they’re still
maximally voting against Greater-Evil. That’s my reason for ranking all in
RCV.
————-
 So that it won’t seem like I’m choosing to report (especially at other
websites)!the STV result that I like better, I should say that I’ll be
reporting the fractional STV result, because it’s unarbitrary.

As for Droop vs Hare, I like Hare if it’s more unbiased, but I like Droop
if it assigns more seats by quota, requiring less elimination.

Because anyone with over 1/(S+1) of the votes will get a seat anyway, there
doesn’t seem to be a compelling reason to immediately give it to hir by
quota…& so I guess I prefer the Hare quota for STV, due to its better
unbias.

It goes without saying that an STV result should be determined by an
advocate & specialist of STV.

Justification for including Party-PR:

I, too, like STV’s more expressive ballot, but I claim that Party-PR’s
dramatically simpler & easier balloting & count, with no need for any new
balloting-equipment or count-software, & its easy kitchen-table
hand-calculator or pencil-paper allocation, can be very important.

…the reason why nearly all PR countries use Party-PR?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20240716/dfd7ad8c/attachment.htm>