[EM] Poll Ballot

[Michael Ossipoff]

I should add that there’s no reason for concern that your vote will be
wasted in Party-PR, if the party you vote for doesn’t get enough votes for
a seat.

That’s because:

With 500 seats elected at-large in Sainte-Lague, the requirement for a seat
is only about 1/7 of one percent.

Suppose that there are 10 progressive parties that split the progressive
vote into 10 equal parts.

…& that none of them get enough votes for a seat.

Alright, 1/7 of one percent, times 10 = 1/70 of the vote.  … = about 1.43%
of the vote.

So, by not voting for a guaranteed winnable umbrella ☂ party, the
progressives have only wasted, & denied the umbrella party 1.4% of the
vote.  … not enough to likely affect the parliamentary balance-of-power.

STV requires many small districts, which, like its complicated count, & its
balloting-requirements, is an avoidable complication &
implementation-problem.

Petty-PR doesn’t need any districting. At-large. Quick, easy, simple.

What, people might want to elect someone local? They still can!!

Any quota-size local group group can elect a local candidate of their
choice if they want to.

  …or not!!

It’s their choice. as it should be. We shouldn’t be forced to elect someone
local. Democracy doesn’t coerce.

On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 21:24 Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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/cf478ccc/attachment.htm>