[EM] Needless voting disappointments. Election-Methods Digest, Vol 236, Issue 43

[steve bosworth]

Message: 3: Needless voting disappointments
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 09:29:54 +0000
From: Richard Lung <voting at ukscientists.com>
To: steve bosworth <stevebosworth at hotmail.com>,

"election-methods at lists.electorama.com<mailto:election-methods at lists.electorama.com>"



Subject: Re: [EM] New Thread: Needless voting disappointments
Message-ID: <d32d5c79-9620-48bc-849e-1bc157045357 at ukscientists.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"


Hello Richard,

Thank you for your response and l propose to answer your points in line.

R: Hello Steve,
"about 50% of the voters are disappointed when using plurality voting,
and over 10% are disappointed when using STV or CPO-STV."

This is about right but it would be false of the original Hare system,
making one constituency of the nation.”


1-S: Yes, but for clarity, let's start with STV where the nation is one constituency. For this context, however, I see using EPR as better in respecting and revealing the "pluralist" reality of our society that you correctly mention. This is because ordinal "preferences" are not as expressive of each voter's scale of values as are the evaluative, yet, still ordinal adjectives people use all the time, such as Excellent, Very Good, Good, Acceptable, etc. For example, a voter does not necessarily view their 1st preference candidate as Excellently suited for office. Such adjectives enable each voter to express themselves more meaningfully. Consequently, the EPR post-election report will also inform the public much more completely. How every voter values every candidate is published. This snapshot of all these judgments would also enable analysts better to infer both the numbers and intensities with which the different campaigns in their society are being supported. What do you think? Please also see 5-S: below.


R: “And it did not mean the voters would have to make 500 or so preferences.”


2-S: The same is true of EPR. However, please not that I see the link I mentioned describing how an EPR is counted is simpler for ordinary voters to understand than STV’s count: https://www.jpolrisk.com/legislatures-elected-by-evaluative-proportional-representation-epr-an-algorithm-v3/. At the same time, like ordinary STV, EPR’s ballots can also be counted so that each elected member has only one in of the legislative body. Alternatively, each of their respective counts have the potential to allow each elected member to have a weighted vote in the assembly which would be exactly equal to the total number of citizens’ ballots that had been counted in their support. If so, this would seem to provide more faithful representation on average for each voter. What do you think?


R:”There would be enough variety in the modest number of preferences made by each voter, to ensure
extreme proportionality of the sort envisioned by this writer”.


3-S: Yes, but this variety would be expressed even more exactly by using EPR.


R: “The only qualification, and an important one, is that society has a pluralist
rather than a monolithic media.

(Some reformers tagged Condorcet pairing onto STV. I remember that Dr
Hill used a Condorcet pairing supplement to decide a final run-off
between runners up.)”

4-S: No comment.

R: “With regard to grading candidates, in my opinion, this is a step
backward from ordinal voting.’’


5-S: I’m perplexed by you thinking grade are “backward.” In the context of my above view that grades are more expressive than preference (please see above, 1-S), it seems that the same is true of both of ordinal and cardinal numbers when it comes to an adult trying briefly to express their judgments about the suitability for office of any candidate. If anyone judging such suitability were to give me either their “preference” or a number, this would immediately beg the questions, Why? What does that preference or number mean? What do you think?


R: “From the point of view of scales of measurement, the classificatory scale is more primitive and less
accurate than the ordinal scale. Cardinal numbers are more powerful than ordinal numbers. But that is why
the vote also has a count, and is not a reason for abolishing the ordinal vote, determining the preferential sequence of the count,


6-S: As I see it, using ordinal adjectives does not “abolish the ordinal vote” but instead enhances it. At the same time, the absolute necessity of using cardinal number is to count each citizen as one, and the vote of each to continue to count as one, to the fullest extent possible. This cardinal equality of citizens seems best provided by the above suggestion that each member of a legislature should have his or her exact weighted vote: best if provided by EPR, second best if provided by using a modified form of STV. Either would guarantee that each voter will most likely see one of the elected candidates as represent their hopes and concerns. The same is not true of the “Cumulative-vote family of election systems)” you mention. What do you think?


7-S: We started our dialogue by talking about a single national constituency. However, please note that a constituency city election of a seven-member council (as was the case in the city in which I live), just over 10% of all the ballots cast could no have help to elect any candidate if ordinary STV were used. Therefore, needless disappointment would occur. In contrast, if EPR were used instead, again 100% of all voters’ ballots would support the whole council in the most informative way.


I look forward our dialogue, of course, all are invited.

Stephen


Regards,

Richard Lung.


On 19/03/2024 04:49, steve bosworth wrote:
>
> *
> *
>
> *Needless disappointments result from electing legislative bodies
> using plurality, STV, or CPO-STV*
>
>
> Structurally, different portions of all the voters fail to help elect
> their favored candidate for a legislative body. For example, when
> electing a seven-member city council; about 50% of the voters are
> disappointed when using plurality voting, and over 10% are
> disappointed when using STV or CPO-STV. However, all these
> disappointments are needless because a new and better way of voting
> guarantees that _every voter_ is most likely to see one of the elected
> members as representing their hopes and concerns. This system is
> called evaluative-proportional representation (EPR):
>
> <https://www.jpolrisk.com/legislatures-elected-by-evaluative-proportional-representation-epr-an-algorithm-v3/>algorithm-v3/

>
> Each EPR ballot invites the voter to grade the suitability for office
> of at least one of the candidates as either Excellent, Very Good,
> Good, or Acceptable. Voters can grade as many of the candidates as
> they want, and give the same grade to more than one candidate.
>
> All these grades are counted to assure each voter that their one vote
> is add to the total of the elected candidate who received their
> highest available grade.
>
> What do you think of the arguments detailed in the above link?
>


[https://s-install.avcdn.net/ipm/preview/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>  Virus-free.www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20240320/816c82d9/attachment-0001.htm>