[EM] Fwd: Election-Methods Digest, Vol 236, Issue 18

[robert bristow-johnson]

> On 03/16/2024 4:45 PM EDT Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 11:52 robert bristow-johnson <rbj at audioimagination.com> wrote:
> > 
> >  > 
> >  > On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 6:14 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >  > > Reply continued:
> >  > > 
> >  > > Anyone who votes other than all-or-nothing in a public political election is using poor strategy.
> >  > > 
> >  
> >  But requiring voters to use **any** strategy at all is IMO just undesirable.
> 
> Wouldn’t it be nice to have a ranked-method do it all for you !!

I don't expect any ranked method to always run flawlessly.  I know about the possibility (and even history) of cycles.  And I understand, when there is a preference cycle, no matter what method is used (including FPTP), there is a spoiler.  Can't be avoided.  I just want to avoid spoiled elections when possible.  That means only Condorcet.

> I listed a lot of important unique Approval advantages that are lost by the complicated automatic-machines that are called “ranked-methods”.
> 

When we (in Burlington) had IRV in 2009, the only money spent was on voter education.  We used exactly the same AccuVote machines that **only** recorded the markings.  Then there was software, ChoicePlus Pro, from Voting Solution that was, I believe, public domain, that was used to open the files of marked ballots from the memory chip from each voting machine, combine into a single file, and then do the IRV procedure.

We have, just as RCV has returned to Burlington, upgraded to new Dominion machines and software, and they had an extra charge for RCV support.

> Compared to those important advantages, the matter of voters’ qualification to use Approval well are the least of our concerns.

Not mine.

> Even the best ranked-method won’t help if it doesn’t get enacted because it doesn’t have Approval’s simplicity,

RCV doesn't get enacted because Approval may appear simpler.  RCV doesn't get enacted because traditionalists don't want any change, Republicans believe it's skewed in favor of the Left (IRV doesn't lean Left or Right, but it *does* lean away from the Center), and then when there *is* a Condorcet failure.  Both Alaska and Burlington started up repeal efforts nearly immediately after the IRV Condorcet failure.  I believe RCV will be repealed in Alaska in November (they had nearly twice the necessary signatures to put the repeal question on the ballot) and IRV was repealed the following year in Burlington (although we brought it back in 2022).

> absolute minimalness, unique unarbitrariness, & completely cost-free implementation.
> 
> …or if its results are easily falsified by count-fraud that’s difficult to detect due to an elaborate complex count.

I call this the diminished transparency in the tally process due to losing Precinct Summability.  I think this is one of FairVotes most egregious oversights, especially as the scope of IRV increases to statewide elections.  The lost of Precinct Summability isn't much of a problem in just the city of Burlington, although we ***do*** opaquely haul the Dominion voting machines (that are sealed) from the polling places to City Hall and, other than the counts of first-choice (which is useful) and counts of second and third-choice marks (which are useless), the voting data is opaquely hidden as we transport the machines and sealed ballot bags.  So, unless there is an outright majority winner (that we can determine from the first-choice vote counts), then we don't know who wins from the data posted at the polling places.  We have to wait until the authority at the monolithic central tabulation location comes out and announces who wins.  No outside party (like competing campaigns or news reporters) can double check the vote tallies.  That's opaque.

--

r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj at audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

.
.
.