<div dir="auto"><div>Richard,<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Keep up the good work ... I know your work in the tranches is an up hill battle and a thankless task.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">The recursive formulation of SPE was not intended for public consumption ... only to point out to the "numerate" the irony of how tantalizingly close STAR is to the well established, traditional Sequential Pairwise Elimination procedure with a score based agenda. [Traditionally the SPE agenda can be based on anything ...whim of the chair ... alphabetical order ... whatever ... it is external input to the SPE procedure.]</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Keep up the good work!</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">-Forest</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">PS see my suggestion in-line below ...</div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Feb 22, 2023, 9:52 AM Richard, the VoteFair guy <<a href="mailto:electionmethods@votefair.org">electionmethods@votefair.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On 2/21/2023 7:39 PM, Forest Simmons wrote:<br>
> Instead of just top two score runoff ... extend it to a runoff between<br>
> the score winner and the champion from below ... not just the score<br>
> winner from below ... but the winner from below determined (recursively)<br>
> by the same method .... i.e. Sequential Pairwise Elimination in disguise<br>
> ... a very respectable method with a long and hoary tradition behind it<br>
> in deliberative assemblies .. Robert'sRules of Order and the like.<br>
<br>
The concept of "recursively" would be very difficult to explain to most <br>
voters. (Many voters think that IRV/STV's transfer of votes is too <br>
complex and possibly unfair.)<br>
<br>
IMO the concept of "recursive" is even harder to explain than "pairwise" <br>
(even if the word itself is avoided).<br>
<br>
> Why have the STAR folks stubbornly dug in their heels with a clone<br>
> dependent version when one simple change would make it both Condorcet<br>
> efficient and clone-independent?<br>
<br>
I believe part of their stubbornness comes from their initial belief <br>
that IRV was the only way to count ranked choice ballots. It's <br>
understandable that they strongly dislike IRV (after they understood it, <br>
which came after their initial enthusiasm for IRV). It's mystifying as <br>
to why they didn't realize there are lots of better ways to count ranked <br>
choice ballots.<br>
<br>
IMO both the STAR organization and the FairVote organization suffer as a <br>
result of being led by people who do not fully understand mathematics. <br>
In both cases they later worked with math-savvy experts, but only if <br>
that math-savvy expert was willing to go along with the <br>
already-established method. The two leaders are slowly learning the <br>
relevant math, but alas only after doing lots of money-backed promotion <br>
for inferior counting methods.<br>
<br>
I do agree with the fans of STAR voting that a voter should be allowed <br>
to mark two or more candidates at the same preference level.<br>
<br>
Currently I'm trying to educate local election officials that IRV can <br>
count those marks. And that this counting can be done without using <br>
fractions. (Simply "pair up" equivalent ballots, and distribute those <br>
ballots in "whole" equal numbers to the same-ranked candidates.)<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Another solution is the Martin Harper solution: two passes through the ballots for each elimination step ... initially count the equal first rankings as whole "equal first approvals" ... then (on the second pass) transfer the entire vote of the ballot to its equal-first candidate with the greatest equal-first approval total (from all the ballots).</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Does that make sense?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">It strengthens IRV's partial clone-winner compliance ... a definite improvement!</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">The method becomes so robust that even if every voter made all their ranked votes equal-first, this method would not break down.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">The method can be thought of as a happy marriage of Approval and IRV ... for people not put off by mixed marriages.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
If the Portland (Oregon) elections in 2024 do count such marks -- <br>
instead of discarding them as "overvotes" -- then I'll know my local <br>
education efforts have been fruitful. I have my fingers crossed.<br>
<br>
Richard Fobes<br>
The VoteFair guy<br>
(not to be confused with the other Richard in this forum)<br>
<br>
<br>
(In the title I'm hoping that "guys" is intended to be the <br>
gender-neutral version of this word to cover the election-method experts <br>
who are female.)<br>
<br>
<br>
On 2/21/2023 7:39 PM, Forest Simmons wrote:<br>
> Why have the STAR folks stubbornly dug in their heels with a clone <br>
> dependent version when one simple change would make it both Condorcet <br>
> efficient and clone-independent?<br>
> <br>
> Instead of just top two score runoff ... extend it to a runoff between <br>
> the score winner and the champion from below ... not just the score <br>
> winner from below ... but the winner from below determined (recursively) <br>
> by the same method .... i.e. Sequential Pairwise Elimination in disguise <br>
> ... a very respectable method with a long and hoary tradition behind it <br>
> in deliberative assemblies .. Robert'sRules of Order and the like.<br>
> <br>
> The manual version is more laborious than the manual version of full <br>
> runoff ... so it never got into large public elections.<br>
> <br>
> Ironically, the instant version of SPE is much easier than IRV <br>
> ...precinct summable, etc ...but it's hard to break old habits of thought.<br>
> <br>
> -Forest<br>
----<br>
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a href="https://electorama.com/em" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://electorama.com/em</a> for list info<br>
</blockquote></div></div></div>