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

[Closed Limelike Curves]

>
> 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.
>
Cardinal methods also avoid spoilers when there's no Condorcet winner.

On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 2:23 PM robert bristow-johnson <
rbj at audioimagination.com> wrote:

>
>
> > 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."
>
> .
> .
> .
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
> info
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20240316/2cdc8ad0/attachment-0001.htm>