[EM] Poll Ballot

[Michael Ossipoff]

Sorry, I forgot to add that with a 500-seat parliament, elected at-large,
even d’Hondt has a very low requirement for a seat:

Instead of 1/7 of one percent, it’s 1/5 of one percent. Not problematically
high.

I prefer SL because of its near-perfect unbias, but it could be argued
that, for the systematic-procedures usually used to define & do the
allocations, d’Hondt’s looks simpler & more intuitive.

…though by the trial-&-error methods by which the methods were historically
defined for apportionment here, SL’s (Webster’s) rounding to the nearest
integer is more natural & intuitive than DH’s (Jefferson’s) rounding down.

I prefer SL’s unbias, unless a population insist on d’Hondt’s simpler more
intuitive systematic-procedure.

On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 21:49 Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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/20240716/5911df68/attachment.htm>