[EM] POLL: New deadline: 2024-05-16 05:15:00 UTC

[Chris Benham]

Robert,

> So my fav is straight-ahead Condorcet with Plurality as the 
> contingency method.

That method is a big open invitation for the supporters  of the 
Plurality (aka FPP) winner to engage in easy Burial strategy.  Say 
sincere is

46  A
44  B
10  C>B

B is the Condorcet winner.    B>A 54-46   and  B>C 44-10.

What can the A supporters do about that?

46  A>C  (sincere is A or A>B)
44  B
10  C>B

They have given B a pairwise defeat so now there is a cycle. B>A 
54-46,   A>C 46-10,   C>B 56-44.

According to your preferred  Condorcet//FPP method the strategists 
easily steal the election.  In this example that is also true of Margins 
and the dinky Bottom-Two Runoff "IRV" method you like.

A much better Condorcet method is  Smith//Approval (implicit) which here 
gives the strategists a backfire by electing C. Winning Votes is also 
better and does the same thing. So does Smith//DAC.

Condorcet//Approval (implicit) wasn't nominated in the poll but is the 
same thing as Smith//Approval (implicit) when there are no more than 3 
candidates and is also much better.

Among Condorcet methods, Benham and Woodall both continue to elect B in 
the second example because they meet Unburiable Mutual Dominant Third. 
Similar and also much better is Condorcet//Hare.

Among non Condorcet methods,  I would vastly prefer plain Hare and 
Double Defeat, Hare.  Plain Approval would at least be vastly better 
bang-for-buck.

Chris B.



On 13/05/2024 11:32 am, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>
>  1. >Though speaking of: you left out some (non-Condorcet) methods on
>     your ballot. Do you want them ranked last, or somewhere else?
> 2.
>
>  3. Just like in other elections I refuse to weigh in on candidates I
>     don't know about.  And on a ranked ballot they would likely be
>     unranked unless Hitler or Satan or Donald Trump was on the ballot,
>     and then I would have to rank these unfamiliar candidates higher.
> 4.
>
>  5. > Approval plus manual runoff, MJ, RCIPE, and Double Defeat Hare
> 6.
>
>  7. S orry.  No nothing from me.  You guys know I'm pretty
>     simplistic.  My principles:
> 8.
>
>  9. 1. Equally-valued votes. One-Person-One-Vote.  Equality under the
>     law.  That means Majority Rule. (If any minority gets to rule,
>     that means their votes counted more, per vote, than then
>     individual votes from voters in the majority that doesn't rule.
>     That has to be considered a "Bad Thing".)
>10.
>
> 11. (1a. Process transparency.  That means not giving up having
>     Precinct Summability.)
>12.
>
> 13. 2. That means if more voters mark their ballots preferring
>     Candidate A to Candidate B than the number of voters marking their
>     ballots to the c ontrary, then Candidate B is not elected.  If we
>     can, at all, avoid it.  That means Condorcet.
>14.
>
> 15. 3. Which Condorcet-consistent method to pick is whatever best
>     finds its way to legislation.  That means the method, spelled out
>     in words, needs to be meaningful and concise and reflect
>     principles widely accepted by the public and legislators.
>16.
>
> 17. So my fav is straight-ahead Condorcet with Plurality as the
>     contingency method.  N^2 summable.  Maybe it should be
>     Condorcet-TTR (top-two-runoff) to give the Hare IRV advocates a
>     fig leaf to cover their shame with. Also N^2 summable.  I dunno.
>
>
> ------ O riginal message------
> *From: *Kristofer Munsterhjelm
> *Date: *Sun, May 12, 2024 17:42
> *To: *robert bristow-johnson;election-methods at lists.electorama.com;
> *Cc: *
> *Subject:*Re: [EM] POLL: New deadline: 2024-05-16 05 <tel:2024-05-16 
> 05>:15:00 UTC
>
> On2024-05-12 18  <tel:2024-05-12 18>:24, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > We need not resubmit our vote, right?
>
> The last ballot you submitted is what counts, so you don't need to
> resubmit unless you want to make a change to it.
>
> Though speaking of: you left out some (non-Condorcet) methods on your
> ballot. Do you want them ranked last, or somewhere else? The methods are
> Approval plus manual runoff, MJ, RCIPE, and Double Defeat Hare.
>
> > I haven't seen posted here more than a couple other ballots.  How many 
> > have voted?
>
> By my count, in reverse order of submission, there's:
>
> Richard Fobes ("Poll, final ballot from Richard Fobes, the VoteFair guy")
> You ("POLL: Approaching deadline:2024-05-11 05  <tel:2024-05-11 05>:15:00 UTC")
> Me ("Poll ballot")
> fdpk69p6uq ("POLL: References (was: Re: Poll, preliminary ballots)")
> Joshua Boehme ("My Preliminary Ballot for the Voting Systems Poll")
> Chris Benham ("Poll ballot revision, Wednesday 24 April")
> Mike Ossipoff ("Revised ballot, Wednesday, April 17th")
>
> > I also am skeptical about the usefulness of the results (I presume a 
> > pairwise preference matrix and approval tallies) but will be interested 
> > anyway.
>
> All the more reason for lurkers out there - or frequent posters for that
> matter - to vote :-)
>
> -km
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - seehttps://electorama.com/em  for list info
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20240515/d8dd4cbc/attachment.htm>