<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
<div>STAR is a great gateway method because there are so many different directions to tweak/elaborate/improve/generalize it to transform it into other simple methods based on similar ideas.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>For example, Majority Judgement Top Two Runoff, that uses the exact same score ballots, voted exactly the same.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> While STAR pits against each other the two candidates with the greatest average ("mean") scores, MJTTR compairs the two with the greatest median scores.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Why median instead of mean? Because use of the median gives less strategic incentive for voting closer to the extremes, and the un-exagerated ratings of MJ voters makes the pairwise comparisons more accurate due to fewer strategy induced tied ballot ratings.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Majority Judgement is a score based version of Bucklin that has an ingenious way of breaking the median ties that are extremely likely, as anyone used to dealing with medians will understand.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Why do medians discourage exageration? Suppose the median score for candidate X is three, then changing any ballot rating above three to another one above three would make no difference ... same for ratings below three: the median is less rewarding to
exagerating manipulators.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Experiments by the MJ inventors seem to support the idea that voters under MJ experience little to no temptation for exagerating their best honest estimates for the deserved ratings of the candidates.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>That said, there is another metric called "chiastic approval" that is a very nice compromise between mean and median ballot ratings ... which we will come back to in the future, after considering more of the low hanging fruit in another direction ... (to
be continued)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div id="composer_signature">
<div dir="auto" style="font-size:85%; color:#575757">Sent from my MetroPCS 4G LTE Android Device</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>-------- Original message --------</div>
<div>From: Susan Simmons <suzerainsimmons@outlook.com> </div>
<div>Date: 7/8/21 9:04 PM (GMT-08:00) </div>
<div>To: Daniel Carrera <dcarrera@gmail.com> </div>
<div>Cc: election-methods@lists.electorama.com </div>
<div>Subject: Re: [EM] STAR Voting </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>BTW its not just the clone thing that makes me think that STAR is strategically equivalent to Approval, rather it is the combination of these two facts:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>(1) Score Voting is strategically equivalent to Approval ... optimal strategy entails voting at the extremes (mostly if not exclusively).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>(2) If voters vote only at the extremes, the Score winner will be the pairwise winner of every head-to-head contest.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So in the case of sophisticated voters the top two runoff is redundant.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>For naive voters it is harmless and may serve some valuable psychological purpose.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div id="composer_signature">
<div dir="auto" style="font-size:85%; color:#575757">Sent from my MetroPCS 4G LTE Android Device</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>-------- Original message --------</div>
<div>From: Daniel Carrera <dcarrera@gmail.com> </div>
<div>Date: 7/8/21 7:49 PM (GMT-08:00) </div>
<div>To: Susan Simmons <suzerainsimmons@outlook.com> </div>
<div>Cc: election-methods@lists.electorama.com </div>
<div>Subject: Re: [EM] STAR Voting </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:trebuchet ms,sans-serif; font-size:small">
<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 6:49 PM Susan Simmons <<a href="mailto:suzerainsimmons@outlook.com">suzerainsimmons@outlook.com</a>> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204); padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div>Also the STAR camp may not be as hardened against suggestions as the leading IRV proponents are ... including the suggestion of a Condorcet check on the front end.<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif; font-size:small">
Certainly. I get good vibes from the STAR team. If you look at their website, they don't have any unfair attacks against other methods. What they say about Condorcet and Approval Voting is fair, reasonable, and honest, and they readily admit that those are
good voting methods too. I mentioned this on Reddit a few days ago and I got a positive response. You could imagine making a rule like this:</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif; font-size:small">
<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif; font-size:small">
1) If there is a candidate with a majority of first-place votes, elect them.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif; font-size:small">
2) Otherwise, elect the candidate that wins every one-on-one pairwise contest against every other candidate, if there is one.<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif; font-size:small">
3) Otherwise, ... [ STAR ]</div>
<br>
</div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif; font-size:small">
Rule (1) is redundant but practically I think it would be easier to convince someone with it.</div>
<br>
</div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204); padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div></div>
<div>They might even be open to incorporating the use of VPR (<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif; font-size:small"></span>Voting for a Published Rating)... facilitated replication of the ballot recommendations of your favorite
candidate, party, or other institution.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>No matter what method is adopted, it should be implemented in a <span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif; font-size:small">
</span>Replicate a Published Recommendation Option shell, to simplify the voting process as much as possible for Joe Q Public (remember Joe the Plumber?) or Charles L. Dodgson' s English Plough Boy.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif; font-size:small">
I have no idea what "Voting for a Published Rating" or "<span class="gmail_default"></span><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif">Replicate a Published Recommendation Option shell" mean.</span></div>
<br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204); padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div>Anybody have connections to STAR?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif; font-size:small">
Not really, but one of their members is active on Reddit and seems like a nice person.</div>
<br>
</div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif; font-size:small">
Cheers,</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif; font-size:small">
Daniel</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>