<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On 05 Mar 2019, at 10:56, robert bristow-johnson <<a href="mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com" class="">rbj@audioimagination.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><p class=""><br class="">
<br class="">
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------<br class="">
Subject: Re: [EM] [ApprovalVoting] Re: The IRV-Disease has reached my town.<br class="">
From: "Juho Laatu" <<a href="mailto:juho.laatu@gmail.com" class="">juho.laatu@gmail.com</a>><br class="">
Date: Tue, March 5, 2019 12:12 am<br class="">
To: "EM" <<a href="mailto:election-methods@lists.electorama.com" class="">election-methods@lists.electorama.com</a>><br class="">
--------------------------------------------------------------------------<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
> P.S. I think the STV-BTR method that Robert proposed could make a lot of sense in societies where IRV way of thinking is strong.</p><p class="">i can't take any credit for proposing that. i dunno who thought of it first. wasn't me.</p><p class="">the thing that i sorta don't like about it is that it
is still IRV and not strictly precinct-summable. otherwise it's okay, i guess. and we could still precinct-sum each defeat pair as a check on the election if there *is* a CW. But it would be necessary that a physical instrument representing each ballot be transferred from the
precinct to the central tabulation location to tally the election and determine the winner. if transparency is salient, then STV-BTR is still more like IRV and less like Condorcet.</p></div></blockquote><div>Precinct-summability could be the next evolutionary step (in an IRV oriented society) after the basic idea of STV-BTR has been accepted.</div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><p class=""><br class="">> P.P.S. Limiting the number of ranking levels or number of ranked candidates could make sense when the number of candidates is very high, or just to keep things simple for the vote counting process, or to keep things simple enough for the voters (not to frighten them with the idea of ranking all
100 candidates). I.e. not theoretically ideal, but in practical situations ranking some candidates may be much better than ranking only one, or not bothering to vote at all.----<br class=""> </p><p class="">the problem is, in 2010, when the IRV opponents were gearing up their rhetoric in Burlington, they **falsely** claimed there was "voter disenfranchisement" with IRV in Burlington. because they read some propaganda that pointed to *real* disenfranchisement in San
Francisco for voters that didn't realize who the race was really gonna end up between. these "disenfranchised" voters marked their ballots 1,2,3 and none of those candidates were in the IRV final round. they had no say in who was ultimately elected. and, like plurality,
they would have to guess who is likely to win and vote insincerely for the major candidate that they dislike the least.</p><p class="">in Burlington, we had 5 candidates and 5 ranking levels. i think 5 or 6 levels is enough and we should make our ballot access laws tough enough to *approximately* limit
the number of candidates on the ballot to that number. maybe there's enough room on the ballot for 8 or 9 levels, but i don't think we would need them.</p></div></blockquote><div>There may be many kind of elections, with different number of candidates, with or without reliable polls beforehand, and voters may be different. One should take all this into account when planning an ideal election method for each society, and their different elections. Where I live, we could have some 200 candidates in the parliamentary elections. The system might evolve towards STV or something like that. Most people would not like to rank all the candidates anyway. Having all the candidates named on the ballot paper would be tedious too. The best idea might be to continue the tradition of writing the number of the favourite candidate on the (blank) ballot sheet, and allow voters to write more than one number on that ballot sheet. But how many numbers should one allow? 200 sounds excessive. And what if people just want to vote for their favourite party? Maybe one should have some inheritance rules that allow the party to inherit the vote when all the listed candidates have been eliminated. This example is a proportional election, and that complicates things a bit. But my point is just that there are different societies with different traditions, different preferences, different needs and different elections, and we just need to take that into account, and adapt to whatever the real-life situation is.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Juho</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><p class=""><br class="">--<br class="">
<br class="">
r b-j <a href="mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com" class="">rbj@audioimagination.com</a><br class="">
<br class="">
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."<br class="">
</p><div class=""> <br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div class=""> <br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div class=""> <br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div>----<br class="">Election-Methods mailing list - see <a href="https://electorama.com/em" class="">https://electorama.com/em</a> for list info<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>