[EM] Open letter to STAR voting promoters

[Richard, the VoteFair guy]

On 6/4/2024 2:26 PM, Toby Pereira wrote:
 > I think it does make common sense that rated ballots are
 > easier to fill out above a certain number of candidates. ...

For ballot marking, what you think of as "rating" I think of as ranking 
at the same "choice" level.

In that sense we agree that going through a list of two dozen (or more) 
candidates would be like "rating" them.


I believe that a well-chosen vote-counting method should allow a voter 
to BOTH RATE AND RANK candidates on the ballot.

Specifically, the voter should be motivated to mark their most-preferred 
two or three candidates in the first two or three (preference-level) 
columns.  This ensures their first choice really gets first-choice 
priority, their second choice really gets second-choice priority, etc.

Then the remaining columns would be marked in a way that groups together 
roughly-equally-liked candidates together in the same column.  The voter 
should not have to decide whether this is called "rating" or "ranking."

This hybrid approach -- ranking the first few and rating the rest -- 
works with as many candidates as appear on the ballot.  Even for the 135 
candidates in the infamous California gubernatorial recall election.

This hybrid ballot-marking approach is what I would use in the upcoming 
Portland city-council election if mythical "overvotes" were allowed and 
counted correctly.

Yet in my mind I'm only "rating" them for the choice columns to the 
right of the first two or three choice columns.  In your mind you're 
rating them across all the preference levels.


 > ... whereas with ranking, you have to do them in
 > order with the potential risk of missing one out and messing it up.

That's only if mythical "overvotes" are prohibited.

That's why I've pushed hard to eliminate the foolishness of dismissing 
so-called "overvotes."

We agree that we should be free to mark multiple candidates at the same 
preference level -- regardless of whether that qualifies as "rating" or 
"ranking."

It's during vote counting when the rating versus ranking interpretation 
correctly -- or incorrectly -- combines our intended opinions with the 
opinions of other voters.


Switching to the topic of how many candidates will be on the ballot in 
Portland ...

FWIW, in the upcoming Portland city-council election, based on the 
declared candidates so far, there will be about 9 to 12 candidates on 
the ballot.  Each district will have their own set of candidates.  I 
believe there will be 6 choice columns.

If the marks were counted correctly I would use the hybrid approach I've 
described above.

Fortunately the city-council counting will use STV.  This makes it 
unlikely that all three seats will be filled without electing at least 
one of the 5 or 6 candidates I've marked.

(I don't know how write-in candidates will be handled, so I'm reluctant 
to assume that my "sixth choice" candidate will be ranked above someone 
else ranking a write-in candidate as their "first choice.")

Unfortunately there will be more "exhausted" ballots in the election for 
mayor, because that will use (single-winner) IRV.  So far there are only 
about 6 candidates running for mayor.  I hope this number increases 
because I don't especially like any of them so far.


Richard Fobes
the VoteFair guy



On 6/4/2024 2:26 PM, Toby Pereira wrote:
> I think it does make common sense that rated ballots are easier to fill 
> out above a certain number of candidates. I think some people may have 
> previously cited some studies, but just from the common sense view, I 
> think I would find it easier to rate with more than a handful of 
> candidates. I was watching the Eurovision Song Contest last month, and 
> gave the songs scores out of 10. It would have been way too much effort 
> to rank all 25 or so songs. With scores, you can just work your way down 
> the list (perhaps after identifying your favourite and least favourite 
> to calibrate your scale), whereas with ranking, you have to do them in 
> order with the potential risk of missing one out and messing it up.
> 
> But as has been said by Lime, this is a very different matter from 
> whether you actually use the numerical values of the scores. You can 
> just infer the rankings from them and run a Condorcet method if you so wish.
> 
> Toby