<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div class="m_-8808946313702345033moz-cite-prefix">
<br>
Michael Ossipoff wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><span class="">Because I wanted people to vote, and
because IRV is so popular and relatively well-known, I
designated IRV as the count-rule.<br>
<br></span><span class="">
(I told people to rank only the candidates they approve of.)<br>
</span></blockquote>
<br>
That is a bit odd, since IRV meets Later-no-Harm and so there's
never any strategic point in truncating.<span class=""><br></span></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Sure, that was a mis-statement: It was for the _MDDA_ poll that I said to rank only the candidates the voter approves of. ...not for the IRV poll.<br><br></div><div>In the IRV poll, I and some others voted a complete ranking.<br><br></div><div>For the PoliticalForums poll on voting-systems, the alternatives were:<br><br></div><div>Plurality<br>Approval<br></div><div>Score<br></div><div>MDDA<br><br></div><div>I wanted to include a ranking-method. But I only wanted to include 1 ranking-method, because I didn't want to ask participants to read about more than 1 unfamiliar method or rank-count rule.<br><br></div><div>I chose MDDA because it (along with MDDAsc) is the best for elections, and is very briefly-defined--something that can make all the difference in poll-participation.<br><br></div><div>And, rather than define a different rank-count for the poll's designated count-rule, it seemed simpler to just designate MDDA (even though what's best for elections isn't necessarily best for a poll).<br><br></div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div class="m_-8808946313702345033moz-cite-prefix"><span class="">
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Of course, it's been pointed out that
methods that elect the pair-winner, among the winners by 2
different methods, tend to fail FBC.</blockquote>
<br></span>
And Mono-raise. It usually causes vulnerability (or greater
vulnerability) to Push-over strategy.<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>For polls where offensive strategy seems more likely, I'll use:<br><br></div><div>Pairwise-Winner (MAM, Smith,MMPO)<br><br></div><div>With the Smith set limiting what can be considered for winning, I don't think there's any need to let it otherwise change the MMPO count, by affecting the alternatives' maximum pairwise opposition..<br><br></div><div>...which could cause some unexpected, unintended results of one's ballot.<br><br></div><div>Maybe it would be more convenient to just call it:<br><br></div><div>P(MAM, Smith,MMPO)<br><br></div><div>By combining MAM's 1st-rate burial-deterrence with MMPO's automatic reliable chicken-dilemma defection prevention, that seems the best choice for counting rank-balloting polls, if the goal is to avoid successful offensive strategy.<br><br></div><div>But any reasons otherwise are welcome. Because I might sometimes want to use the best anti-strategy rank-count, I'm interested in any reasons why <br></div><div>P(MAM, Smith,MMPO) could be improved on.<br><br></div><div>Michael Ossipoff <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div class="m_-8808946313702345033moz-cite-prefix">
<br>
Chris Benham<div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
On 12/19/2016 6:49 AM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:<br>
</div></div></div>
<blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="h5">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 12:46 PM,
Toby Pereira <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tdp201b@yahoo.co.uk" target="_blank">tdp201b@yahoo.co.uk</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div style="color:#000;background-color:#fff;font-family:HelveticaNeue,Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,Lucida Grande,Sans-Serif;font-size:13px">
<div id="m_-8808946313702345033m_-3807195920192830353yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1482082343788_3612" dir="ltr"><span id="m_-8808946313702345033m_-3807195920192830353yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1482082343788_3667">It
depends on what you mean by polls. If it's just an
opinion poll to see what the likely result will be
in an election (so something that isn't in any way
binding itself), it's about more than finding a
method that will produce a winner. </span></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Yes. This isn't a political poll at all. It's an online
poll on a non-political question, to find out what the CWs
is, and which alternatives have majority approval.<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div style="color:#000;background-color:#fff;font-family:HelveticaNeue,Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,Lucida Grande,Sans-Serif;font-size:13px">
<div id="m_-8808946313702345033m_-3807195920192830353yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1482082343788_3612" dir="ltr"><span id="m_-8808946313702345033m_-3807195920192830353yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1482082343788_3667">You
want to be able to see the support of all the
candidates, and by having a method that's just set
up for a winner (your suggestion of the pairwise
winner from two different counting methods),
you're not going to achieve what you want to
achieve. For this sort of poll, you can use a
variety of different methods and publish all the
results</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Yes, when the result won't be implemented, then there's
no reason why it's necessary to name the count-method in
advance, because the results by various methods could be
given. If there's participation in that poll, I'll report
results by MAM, Approval, & probably Pairwise-Winner
(MAM, Smith,MMPO). <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> Most likely there won't be strategy, and the CWs will
win as CWv.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>But sometimes, when there are only a few voters, other
methods can be needed for tiebreaking.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>I recently did a poll on voting-systems, and MAM
returned a tie between Approval & Score.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>The alternatives were:<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>Approval<br>
</div>
<div>Score<br>
</div>
<div>Bucklin<br>
</div>
<div>MDDA<br>
</div>
<div>MDDAsc<br>
</div>
<div>IRV<br>
</div>
<div>Benham<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>But I noticed that Approval did better than Score in
its pairwise comparisons.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>1. Approval pairbeat more alternatives than Score did.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>2. The sum of Approval's pairwise votes against the
other alternatives was greater than that of Score.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>#1 means that Approval beats Score by Copeland.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>#2 means that Approval beats Score by a version of
Borda.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>But #1 & #2 seem to compellingly indicate that
Approval beats Score.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>Of course there are good reasons to not announce
Copeland or Borda as the count-rule. But, when there's a
tie, they point to a winner in a meaningful way.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>Somewhere else, at PoliticalForums, I'm conducting a
presidential poll between Hillary, Jill, Donald, &
Gary. <br>
<br>
</div>
<div>I don't know the winner so far, because someone
additional has just voted, and i haven't yet updated the
count.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Though PoliticalForums' Opinion-Polls forum supports
Approval, with balloting, count, & count-display fully
automated (voting is by click-bubble), I instead invited
rankings. <br>
<br>
</div>
<div>Because I wanted people to vote, and because IRV is so
popular and relatively well-known, I designated IRV as the
count-rule.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>But I'll announce the winner by Approval, Benham &
by <br>
</div>
<div>Pairwise-Winner (MAM, Smith,MMPO) too.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>(I told people to rank only the candidates they approve
of.)<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I conducted a voting-systems poll there too, and
Approval is the winner there as well.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>I'm conducting two voting-system polls: One at
PoliticalForums,and one at CIVS (Condorcet Internet Voting
Service).<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>I emphasize that those two polls, at PoliticalForums
& at CIVS, are to find out how _the general public_
feels about voting-systems. Obviously the people here at
EM, who are not representative of the general public on
that subject, shouldn't vote in those
general-public-opinion polls.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>But of course feel free to check out the results.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>As I said, Approval is the consistent winner, at both
polls. Score is 2nd-best at CIVS. It seems to me that, at
PoliticalForums, Score is tied with Plurality. No one but
me approved MDDA.<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div style="color:#000;background-color:#fff;font-family:HelveticaNeue,Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,Lucida Grande,Sans-Serif;font-size:13px">
<div id="m_-8808946313702345033m_-3807195920192830353yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1482082343788_3612" dir="ltr"><span id="m_-8808946313702345033m_-3807195920192830353yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1482082343788_3667">.</span></div>
<div id="m_-8808946313702345033m_-3807195920192830353yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1482082343788_3691" dir="ltr"><span><br>
</span></div>
<div id="m_-8808946313702345033m_-3807195920192830353yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1482082343788_3709" dir="ltr"><span id="m_-8808946313702345033m_-3807195920192830353yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1482082343788_3710">But
if you're just talking about elections that aren't
for public office, then things are different. Some
of these elections can be done online. </span></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Yes, I've got several online polls going, on
presidential candidates, voting-systems, &
nonpolitical reform questions.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>In the CIVS presidential poll, with 72 votes in, Jill
Stein is the CWv (with Bernie removed from the count).<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I invite people at EM to vote in the PoliticalForums
presidential poll, if they want to. Go to PoliticalForums
(You can find a link to it via google), and then go to its
Opinion Polls forum. Among the polls there is my
presidential poll.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>As I said, of course the voting-system polls are only
for the general public, not for people who are familiar
with voting-systems.<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div style="color:#000;background-color:#fff;font-family:HelveticaNeue,Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,Lucida Grande,Sans-Serif;font-size:13px">
<div id="m_-8808946313702345033m_-3807195920192830353yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1482082343788_3709" dir="ltr"><span id="m_-8808946313702345033m_-3807195920192830353yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1482082343788_3710">And
for those that are likely to have an involved
electorate that are likely to be knowledgeable
about the system, I would suggest score voting but
with live totals published and changeable votes.
So people can enter their scores, but if the
current result suggested they will need to adopt a
more strategic approach, they can change their
vote accordingly. The only other thing I would add
is that the end time should probably be in some
way non-deterministic. Otherwise the live updates
are likely to be less effective. People might
withhold their vote until the last minute, or have
a completely false vote that they change at the
last minute. So you might have 24 hours guaranteed
(or however long is deemed appropriate), and then
it might randomly end with a half life of an hour
or something (which could be longer if the initial
guaranteed time is longer).</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Yes, that would be a good reliable way to find the CWs.
It could be feasible in a meeting-room, but, for most
online polls, it isn't feasible. For one thing, it's
difficult enough to get people to vote once. <br>
<br>
</div>
<div>Rankings is usually a good way to find out the CWs, and
MAM always works fine at CIVS. But, at a forum where the
people are very familiar with the matter being voted on,
and highly committed to some alternative(s), I feel that
it might be better to add Smith,MMPO's
defection-proofness, via<br>
</div>
<div><br>
Pairwise-Winner (MAM, Smith,MMPO)<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>or<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>Pairwise-Winner (MAM, Smith//MMPO)<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>Any opinions on which would be better? <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Mike<br>
<br>
</div>
<div style="color:#000;background-color:#fff;font-family:HelveticaNeue,Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,Lucida Grande,Sans-Serif;font-size:13px"> <br>
<div id="m_-8808946313702345033m_-3807195920192830353yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1482082343788_3692" dir="ltr"><span><br>
</span></div>
<div class="m_-8808946313702345033m_-3807195920192830353qtdSeparateBR" id="m_-8808946313702345033m_-3807195920192830353yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1482082343788_3613"><br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="m_-8808946313702345033m_-3807195920192830353yahoo_quoted" id="m_-8808946313702345033m_-3807195920192830353yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1482082343788_3538" style="display:block">
<blockquote id="m_-8808946313702345033m_-3807195920192830353yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1482082343788_3537" style="padding-left:5px;margin-top:5px;margin-left:5px;border-left-color:rgb(16,16,255);border-left-width:2px;border-left-style:solid">
<div id="m_-8808946313702345033m_-3807195920192830353yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1482082343788_3536" style="font-family:HelveticaNeue,Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,Lucida Grande,Sans-Serif;font-size:13px">
<div id="m_-8808946313702345033m_-3807195920192830353yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1482082343788_3535" style="font-family:HelveticaNeue,Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,Lucida Grande,Sans-Serif;font-size:16px">
<div id="m_-8808946313702345033m_-3807195920192830353yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1482082343788_3534" dir="ltr"> <font id="m_-8808946313702345033m_-3807195920192830353yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1482082343788_3533" face="Arial" size="2">
<hr id="m_-8808946313702345033m_-3807195920192830353yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1482082343788_3614" size="1"> <b><span style="font-weight:bold">From:</span></b>
Michael Ossipoff <<a href="mailto:email9648742@gmail.com" target="_blank">email9648742@gmail.com</a>><br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">To:</span></b>
EM <<a href="mailto:election-methods@lists.electorama.com" target="_blank">election-methods@lists.electo<wbr>rama.com</a>>
<br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">Sent:</span></b>
Sunday, 18 December 2016, 6:05<br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject:</span></b>
[EM] Voting-System Choice for Polls (Just one
more thing I want to say)<br>
</font> </div>
<div class="m_-8808946313702345033m_-3807195920192830353y_msg_container" id="m_-8808946313702345033m_-3807195920192830353yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1482082343788_3637">
<div>
<div class="m_-8808946313702345033h5"><br>
<div id="m_-8808946313702345033m_-3807195920192830353yiv7185354407">
<div id="m_-8808946313702345033m_-3807195920192830353yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1482082343788_3636" dir="ltr">
<div id="m_-8808946313702345033m_-3807195920192830353yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1482082343788_3635">
<div id="m_-8808946313702345033m_-3807195920192830353yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1482082343788_3634">
<div id="m_-8808946313702345033m_-3807195920192830353yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1482082343788_3633">
<div id="m_-8808946313702345033m_-3807195920192830353yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1482082343788_3632">
<div id="m_-8808946313702345033m_-3807195920192830353yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1482082343788_3631">
<div id="m_-8808946313702345033m_-3807195920192830353yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1482082343788_3630">
<div id="m_-8808946313702345033m_-3807195920192830353yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1482082343788_3629">
<div id="m_-8808946313702345033m_-3807195920192830353yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1482082343788_3628">
<div id="m_-8808946313702345033m_-3807195920192830353yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1482082343788_3627">
<div id="m_-8808946313702345033m_-3807195920192830353yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1482082343788_3626">
<div id="m_-8808946313702345033m_-3807195920192830353yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1482082343788_3625">
<div id="m_-8808946313702345033m_-3807195920192830353yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1482082343788_3624">
<div id="m_-8808946313702345033m_-3807195920192830353yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1482082343788_3623">
<div id="m_-8808946313702345033m_-3807195920192830353yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1482082343788_3622">
<div id="m_-8808946313702345033m_-3807195920192830353yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1482082343788_3621">
<div id="m_-8808946313702345033m_-3807195920192830353yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1482082343788_3620">
<div id="m_-8808946313702345033m_-3807195920192830353yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1482082343788_3619">
<div id="m_-8808946313702345033m_-3807195920192830353yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1482082343788_3618">
<div id="m_-8808946313702345033m_-3807195920192830353yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1482082343788_3617">
<div id="m_-8808946313702345033m_-3807195920192830353yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1482082343788_3616">
<div id="m_-8808946313702345033m_-3807195920192830353yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1482082343788_3615">Before
quitting EM
& retiring
from
voting-systems,
there's one
more thing I'd
like to say:<br>
<br>
</div>
What's the
best
voting-system
for polls?<br>
<br>
</div>
Though FBC is
important for
official
political
elections, I
don't think it
serves a
purpose in
polls, where
the purpose is
to get sincere
rankings, and
hope that
people vote
sincere
rankings. In
polls, the
compulsion to
favorite-bury
is much less
likely.<br>
<br>
</div>
As I've said,
I haven't
noticed any
sign
(top-cycles
for 1st place)
of strategy in
polls.<br>
<br>
</div>
I suggest
that, for
sincere
electorates,
MAM is the
ideal best.
That means
it's best for
polls at the
Condorcet
Internet
Voting
Service, where
there's been
no sign of
strategy.<br>
<br>
</div>
But what if
you're doing a
poll among
people who are
highly
involved in
the subject
that you're
polling about,
and have
strong
committment to
some
alternatives?
Like, for
example,
suppose you're
pollng at EM
about
voting-systems?<br>
<br>
</div>
Maybe some
members of the
electorate
will resort to
strategy.
Especially if
the electorate
are a
voting-system
mailing-lislt.<br>
<br>
</div>
So you can't
really be sure
that there'll
be no
chicken-dilemma
defection.<br>
<br>
</div>
So maybe,
instead of
MAM,
Smith//MMPO
should be
used.<br>
<br>
</div>
It is
automatically
resistant to
chicken-dilemma
defection.<br>
<br>
</div>
But, for burial,
it isn't as good
as MAM. With MAM,
a candidate that
you, &
sufficiently-many
others, don't rank
can't beat the CWs
by burial.<br>
<br>
</div>
...but it can in
MMPO, though there's
a lot of uncertainty
& risk in trying
burial in MMPO.<br>
<br>
</div>
Maybe Smith//MMPO's
reliable automatic
chicken-dilemma
protection is more
important, because
defection is easier
& less drastic a
strategy than burial.<br>
<br>
</div>
But maybe MAM's better
burial protection is
more important, because
burial temptation &
opportunity is a lot
more common than a
chicken-dilemma
situation.<br>
<br>
</div>
My suggestion: Use both.<br>
<br>
</div>
Do the count by Smith//MMPO,
& by MAM. Of the winners
by those 2 methods, the
final winner is the one that
pairwise-beats the other.<br>
<br>
</div>
That's a solid good solution,
because:<br>
<br>
</div>
In the chicken-dilemma example,
and also in a burial example,
the intended victim of the
offensive strategy pairbeats the
perps' candidate.<br>
<br>
</div>
So, declaring, as winner, the one
of those 2 winners that pairbeats
the other is definitely the best
solution, if MAM & Smith//MMPO
are the best choices, each of
which offers better protection in
different ways.<br>
<br>
</div>
Of course, it's been pointed out
that methods that elect the
pair-winner, among the winners by 2
different methods, tend to fail FBC.<br>
<br>
</div>
But FBC isn't needed in polls, where
you want sincere ranking, not
equal-top-ranking.<br>
<br>
</div>
Michael Ossipoff<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<span>----<br>
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a href="http://electorama.com/em" target="_blank">http://electorama.com/em </a>for
list info<br>
<br>
<br>
</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="m_-8808946313702345033mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>----
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a class="m_-8808946313702345033moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://electorama.com/em" target="_blank">http://electorama.com/em</a> for list info
</pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="m_-8808946313702345033mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
</div></div><p color="#000000" align="left">No virus
found in this message.<br>
Checked by AVG - <a href="http://www.avg.com" target="_blank">www.avg.com</a><br>
Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4739/13610 - Release
Date: 12/18/16</p>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>