[EM] Poll Ballot, from Richard

[Chris Benham]

>  For Hare I consider ideal would be to first divide the vote into tied
>   fractions summing to 1 to order the remaining candidates and then use
>   that order to transfer the whole vote. 

To be more clear I should have added at the end  "...to a single candidate."

That can cause a different candidate to be next eliminated than if we 
stayed with the tallies resulting from the fractional distribution.

Doing it this way makes Push-over strategising a bit more difficult to 
pull off and is more in the spirit of the (single-winner) Single 
Transferable Vote, which can be conceived of as a type of  "Declared 
Strategy Voting" method.

The voter strategy it simulates is "I select my favourite candidate and 
after that I take no interest in any other candidates until (and unless) 
that candidate is defeated, at which point I either go home or I select 
a new favourite and repeat".

That is a simple honest (maybe a bit naive) strategy which is natural 
and realistic for quite a few voters, which explains why they like Hare.

So from this perspective, if the voter has an equal preference among 
candidates then that voter would want their whole vote to go the one 
that is least in danger of being eliminated.

Chris B.

On 19/07/2024 2:57 am, Richard, the VoteFair guy wrote:
> On 7/17/2024 11:14 PM, Chris Benham wrote:
> > The simplest would be to construct a random tie-breaking order and just
> > transfer the whole vote to whichever of the equal-ranked candidates is
> > highest in the order.
> >
>
>
> Either of these counting methods are acceptable.
>
> As Chris says, using alphabetical order as Michael suggests is NOT 
> acceptable.
>
> Ideally eventually ranked choice ballots will count so-called 
> "overvotes" correctly by pairing up equivalent ballots and 
> distributing the ballots equally, and in whole -- not decimal or 
> fractional -- amounts.  Yet the second option above yields virtually 
> the same result as the second option above.
>
> Richard Fobes
>
>
> On 7/17/2024 11:14 PM, Chris Benham wrote:
>>> However I wouldn’t call an RCV or STV ballot “spoiled” if it has 
>>> equal-ranking. I’d instead just rank any equal-ranked candidates, at 
>>> some particular rank-position, *in alphabetical-order by last-name*
>>>
>>> I figure the voter won’t mind, because he doesn’t have any 
>>> preference among them.
>>>
>>> Is that okay?
>>
>> No, that breaks some axiom that I think is called Anonymity. The 
>> method isn't allowed to discriminate among candidates based on their 
>> on their names.
>>
>> The simplest would be to construct a random tie-breaking order and 
>> just transfer the whole vote to whichever of the equal-ranked 
>> candidates is highest in the order.
>>
>> For Hare I consider ideal would be to first divide the vote into tied 
>> fractions summing to 1 to order the remaining candidates and then use 
>> that order to transfer the whole vote.
>>
>> I assume in the party-PR poll we are just supposed to give our 
>> favourite. Is that correct?
>>
>> Chris B.
>>
>> On 18/07/2024 3:01 pm, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
>>>
>>> I forgot to mention: RCV & STV don’t allow equa-ranking (though 
>>> Condorcet does).
>>>
>>> However I wouldn’t call an RCV or STV ballot “spoiled” if it has 
>>> equal-ranking. I’d instead just rank any equal-ranked candidates, at 
>>> some particular rank-position, *in alphabetical-order by last-name*
>>>
>>> I figure the voter won’t mind, because he doesn’t have any 
>>> preference among them.
>>>
>>> Is that okay?
>>>
>>> Of course, for the RP(wv) count your equal-ranked candidates will be 
>>> counted as equal-ranked, because equal-ranking is permissible in 
>>> Condorcet.
>>>
>>> Additional answers inline below:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 16:55 Richard, the VoteFair guy 
>>> <electionmethods at votefair.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>     Michael, here is my ballot.
>>>
>>>     You can translate this into your desired ballot format.
>>>
>>>     If you claim you need a full ranking, then I choose not to vote in
>>>     this
>>>     poll.  That's because I don't have time to research unfamiliar
>>>     candidates and unfamiliar parties.
>>>
>>>     In the candidate poll my ballot is that I rank Biden as the only
>>>     "approved" candidate
>>>
>>>
>>> Okay.
>>>
>>>
>>>     -- even though I wish he would drop out and
>>>     transfer his delegate votes to nearly anyone.
>>>
>>>     I rank Trump at the bottom of the candidate list, below all the 
>>> other
>>>     candidates
>>>
>>>
>>> Okay.
>>>
>>>     because he wants to destroy democracy, destroy the U.S.
>>>     economy as a favor to Putin, and destroy the U.S. military as 
>>> another
>>>     favor to Putin.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, The Republican in general, & Trump in particular, always 
>>> finishes last, in every Condorcet or STAR poll that includes the 
>>> Republocratic candidates & the Progressive candidates.
>>>
>>> (In this election-year, Biden is winning the CIVS poll “2024 
>>> presidential election”. Likewise in a few STAR polls. …because this 
>>> year, some people feel a desperate need to portray Biden winnable, 
>>> to try to make people vote for him in November. But ordinarily the 
>>> top-finisher & CW is Jill or Bernie…well alright, sometimes a 
>>> Libertarian. Never, ever, is the Republican anywhere but bottom.)
>>>
>>> …& yet, people actually believe that Jill Stein couldn’t beat him. 
>>> Usually she or Bernie is CW, too-finisher in those polls.
>>>
>>> So, the usual top-finisher can’t beat the always bottom-finisher?
>>>
>>> Wow! What are people smoking?
>>>
>>> Hello? The always-bottom-finisher isn’t a threat if we all vote for 
>>> the (same) candidate whom we actually all like.
>>>
>>> Forget “The-Lesser-Evil” & “The-Two-Choices”.
>>>
>>> In Burlington Alaska, it was clearly shown that the median-voters 
>>> prefer the more progressive candidates. …in confirmation of those 
>>> poll-results.
>>>
>>> Lesser-evils voters worry too much!!!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     In between I rank all the other candidates at the same preference
>>>     level,
>>>     and not worth researching to rank them because they lack high-level
>>>     executive experience and expertise.
>>>
>>>
>>> Okay. As I mentioned, in RCV & STV, it will be necessary to for the 
>>> count to rank those equal-ranked candidates in alphabetical-order. 
>>> Is that okay?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     In the party poll, I rank the Democratic party as the only 
>>> "approved"
>>>     party because it's the only party offering a viable candidate.
>>>
>>>
>>> Okay. The Democrat Party is your party vote, for the Party-PR count.
>>>
>>>
>>> Though it would be improper for me to comment on your ballot, 
>>> there’s no rule that says I can’t comment on political-statements:
>>>
>>> See above about the results of Condorcet & STAR polls, & what 
>>> Burlington & Alaska showed about the preference of median-voters.
>>>
>>> Most people say (in answer to other polls) that they’re tired of 
>>> “The-Two-Choices”, & say they want different parties.
>>>
>>> So yes the parties other than the Republocratic Party aren’t 
>>> “viable”, because only the people want them. :-)
>>>
>>> Don’t let the TV tell you what or who is or isn’t “viable”.
>>>
>>> Vote honestly in November, for what we all want.  …& certainly not 
>>> for someone none of us want, for whom we’d have to hold our nose.
>>>
>>> If you’re holding your nose, reconsider your vote.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     Under current circumstances I rank the Republican party at the
>>>     bottom of
>>>     the list, below all other parties.  That's because they are not
>>>     offering
>>>     a candidate who wants to preserve fair elections, protect the U.S.
>>>     against its enemies, and improve the economy.  As another flaw,
>>>     the new
>>>     Republican party platform claims the presidential election will
>>>     not be
>>>     fair if the Republican candidate doesn't win the presidential
>>>     election.
>>>
>>>
>>> Agreed. Few people want the Republicans. They’d never win an 
>>> election with honest voting & honest count.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     In case you didn't notice the above words "only approved party," 
>>> I'll
>>>     clarify that all the parties other than the Democratic party are
>>>     "unapproved" because they do not offer viable candidates.
>>>
>>>
>>> Look what the Democrats offer :-)
>>>
>>> That’s viable?
>>>
>>> ..even though most people say they don’t want them?
>>>
>>> Are the Democrats more viable than the candidates who usually win 
>>> the Condorcet & STAR polls that include the Republocrats & the 
>>> Progressives?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     Apparently, in this poll, you want me to point to one party as the
>>>     one I
>>>     like.  It's "none of the above."  That's because I dislike all
>>>     current
>>>     U.S. political parties.  Yes, I'm willing to "throw away" this
>>>     vote to
>>>     express this preference
>>>
>>>
>>> Okay. Done. Your ballot doesn’t cast a vote in the Party-PR balloting.
>>>
>>> You dislike all current parties? Have you read all of their 
>>> platforms? If not, how do you know you dislike them? What do you 
>>> dislike about the *policies* offered by some of the “3rd-parties” 
>>> that you’ve heard of?
>>>
>>> I’m not trying to get you to change your vote. That would be 
>>> improper. Of course your ballot will be counted exactly as you said.
>>>
>>> I’m merely participating in the political-discussion.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     Clarification:  I register with either the Republican or Democratic
>>>     party so I can vote in the primary elections of one or the other
>>>     of the
>>>     two parties that supply viable nominees.
>>>
>>> The two parties that none of us want are the only viable ones?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     I switch between those two
>>>     parties periodically.  I dislike them both.
>>>
>>> Yes! We all do!
>>>
>>> Switch between them?
>>>
>>> Switch out of them!
>>>
>>>     I also dislike all third
>>>     parties.
>>>
>>>
>>> All of them? Regarding the main ones you’ve heard of, which of their 
>>> platform-policies do you dislike?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     My dislike of existing political parties is why I promote
>>>     election-method reform!
>>>
>>> Yes, that’s why we’re all here! Dislike of The Two Choices.  …which 
>>> obviously are NOT the two choices.
>>>
>>> But which platform-policy of the main other parties that you’ve 
>>> heard of do you dislike?
>>>
>>>
>>>     If U.S. election reforms are well-designed,
>>>     then in the future at least one U.S. party will be motivated to 
>>> offer
>>>     wise problem-solving leaders instead of whatever you want to call
>>>     their
>>>     current nominees.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regarding the platform-policies & leaders of the parties you’ve 
>>> heard of, other than the Democrats & Republicans—what about them 
>>> isn’t wise, problem-solving?
>>>
>>> Michael Ossipoff
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     Richard Fobes
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     On 7/16/2024 9:24 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
>>>     > One reason for my voting 1st is to demonstrate what I mean by the
>>>     > voting-instructions:
>>>
>>>     ...
>>>     ----
>>>     Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for
>>>     list info
>>>
>>>
>>> ----
>>> Election-Methods mailing list - seehttps://electorama.com/em for 
>>> list info
>>
>> ----
>> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for 
>> list info
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list 
> info