<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 22/09/2023 11:12, Richard Lung
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:9005fd14-dc47-bec3-c863-b5bd8284fc3a@ukscientists.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<p><br>
</p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:ApplyBreakingRules/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:UseFELayout/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
</style>
<![endif]--> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold"">That voters are able to make their own lists, in
number order of choice, wresting politics from the
politicians, in the nation, and in the world, is a fact to be
welcomed, without reservation, not saddened by.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold"">It is no part of the voters job to decide
alternate niceties of the count. There is such a thing in
society, which indeed society depends on, called the division
of labor. This applies also to election method, with regard to
the vote, for everyone, and the count, a specialism, tho you
wouldn’t think so from the oversights of reform opponents.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold""> </span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold"">When politicians ask for a refinement in the count
of ranked choice votes, they are asking what lawyers call a
leading question, in other words, a misleading question, by
assuming the answer lies within a single member system. What
is more, they are doing the first thing you’re not supposed to
do, according to philosophy of scientific method. They are
presuming what one is supposed to prove, by insisting on some
elimination count procedure.</span> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold""> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold"">FairVote has at least kept in touch with a
tradition of election reform going back to Thomas Hare. The
Hare system was successively improved and promoted mainly by
mathematicians, invented by Andrae, modified by Droop and
Gregory; promoted by Leonard Courtney, a Cambridge mathematics
Tripos; and those under-appreciated reformers, Hoag and
Hallett in the USA. As well as natural science educated HG
Wells (including biology by TH Huxley); JFS Ross, an engineer;
Enid Lakeman, a chemist.</span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold""> In short, the democratic election reform
tradition that The Machine had virtually obliterated in a
score of cities, including the attempt to obliterate Cambridge
Massachusetts PR, with six anti-STV referendums in sixteen
years. </span> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold""> </span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold"">At the same time, post-war social choice theory
applied axiomatic deduction to its undemocratic majority
counting principle, it logically declared to be undemocratic
(as in Theorem Arrow). Self-evident principles: evident to no
one but oneself, Ambrose Bierce defined in The Devil’s
dictionary. Principles cannot just be stated. They have to be
tested. It took a century and the advent of computer counting,
before Brian Meek could more thoro’ly rationalise the transfer
of surplus votes in a proportional count.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold""> </span><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold"">And elections are still two-truth systems, with
different counts for elections and exclusions of candidates. A
one-truth system, in keeping with the aspirations of the
sciences, would require the Meek surplus transfer election
also to be applied to the exclusion count, replacing its
traditional “last past the post” count. Such a “binomial”
count, for a one truth election, won’t fully work, however,
without counting all the votes, including abstentions, telling
how much the voters are electing or excluding candidates.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold"">Regards,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold"">Richard Lung.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Arial Rounded MT
Bold""><br>
</span></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 21/09/2023 22:39, Michael Garman
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CANAGaDcn-NMg29O+N+DLgHcvdJCv2VrttxDyxL-P6VGgvD9Vbg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">Rob,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>> RCV is already poorly understood. When I moved to
San Francisco in 2011, I expected to grudgingly like voting
in RCV elections, and I expected to enjoy ranking my choices
What I found instead was that very few people here
understand how votes are counted, and many folks in my lefty
political tribe here take great pride in their ignorance of
math and the inner workings of their electoral system,
trusting that the powers-that-be will count things
correctly.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This claim isn't substantiated by any of the extensive
polling on the subject. <a
href="https://www.alaskansforbetterelections.com/polling-shows-alaskan-voters-understand-ranked-choice-voting/"
moz-do-not-send="true">85%</a> of Alaska voters reported
that it was "simple" after its first use, as did at least <a
href="http://readme.readmedia.com/RANK-THE-VOTE-NYC-RELEASES-EDISON-RESEARCH-EXIT-POLL-ON-THE-ELECTION/17989282?utm_source=newswire&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=media_pr_emails"
moz-do-not-send="true">93%</a> of NYC voters in every
racial group. A 2013 survey found that <a
href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1002/naticivirevi.106.1.0025?seq=2"
moz-do-not-send="true">89%</a> of voters in California
cities using IRV find it "easy."</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>> As "exhibit A", I will point to the recent clown
show in Alameda County</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Oh, come on. You can't possibly be suggesting that human
administrative error is equivalent to an inherent failure of
an electoral system. Even administrators of FPTP elections,
as was recently the case in DeKalb County, GA, <a
href="https://www.ajc.com/politics/miscount-in-dekalb-caused-by-voting-computer-programming-errors/Z5WPVW5UKVBRTMN4TUZGZW2LLM/"
moz-do-not-send="true">make mistakes.</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>> RCV elected the extreme candidates, rather than the
compromise</div>
<div>You're seizing on outliers. <a
href="https://democracysos.substack.com/p/alaska-election-results-show-why"
moz-do-not-send="true">All but three</a> of the nearly 400
IRV elections that have been conducted in the US since 2004
have elected the Condorcet winner.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>MJG</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at
5:26 PM Rob Lanphier <<a href="mailto:roblan@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">roblan@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Hi everyone,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Oh Michael...where do I begin? Your apparent move
to the dark side makes me sad. I realize that this
intro may sound condescending, but I truly don't mean
it that way. I deeply respect your opinion. YOU were
the one who taught me about "center squeeze" in 1995
or so, and made me rethink AV/PV/IRV/RCV (or whatever
the name of the week is). I just think you're
incorrect about FairVote.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>More inline below.....<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Sep 20, 2023
at 10:32 PM Michael Ossipoff <<a
href="mailto:email9648742@gmail.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">email9648742@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="auto">Yes, that fancier Sequential Pairwise
ordering method would make it harder for a
strategist to guess anything about the
comparison-order…when, instead of the candidate’s
top-count, it uses the sum of the top-counts of
those above him on each ballot.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">An extra layer of unpredictability for
a would-be strategist.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">The vulnerability of the
simplest-defined procedure would have to be weighed
against what polls & focus-groups say about
people’s requirement for definition-simplicity &
brevity.</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>RCV is already poorly understood. When I moved to
San Francisco in 2011, I expected to grudgingly like
voting in RCV elections, and I expected to enjoy
ranking my choices What I found instead was that
very few people here understand how votes are counted,
and many folks in my lefty political tribe here take
great pride in their ignorance of math and the inner
workings of their electoral system, trusting that the
powers-that-be will count things correctly.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>As "exhibit A", I will point to the recent clown
show in Alameda County (i.e. just a few miles east of
me, on the other side of a puddle known as the "San
Francisco Bay"):</div>
<div><a
href="https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Alameda-County-admits-tallying-error-in-17682520.php"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Alameda-County-admits-tallying-error-in-17682520.php</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>It would seem that they had been counting RCV
elections wrong for DECADES, and only noticed the
problem in 2022. Simplicity and precinct summability
matters.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="auto">Undeniably the more multi-layered
& unpredictable ordering procedure is more
strategy-proof & better.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Strategy-evaluation for
Condorcet-complying pairwise-count methods has
proven to be complicated & more difficult than
one would expect.</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This I will agree with. That is why I've hopped on
the approval voting bandwagon for single-winner
reform. I've been (more-or-less) aligned with
FairVote when it comes to multi-winner reform, since
the many of the problems with STV dissipate as the
number of seats being selected for rises. For
example, using STV to proportionally select members of
a 5-seat board helps ensure diverse representation.
I'm not aware of anyplace in the SF Bay Area that is
doing that, though. What they do is divide the land
inside the city/county/whatever into districts, and
then performs single-winner elections in each
district. It's horrific.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="auto">But it now seems for sure that there
are such methods that are sufficiently
offensive-strategy-proof or well-protected from
offensive-strategy. It’s only a question of how
many & which ones.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">The Condorcet-IRV-Runoff hybrids hold
promise, with merit to always be balanced with what
is heard in polls & focus groups about
definition-brevity.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">So I’m sure that I’ll propose &
recommend good Condorcet versions (even if I don’t
yet know which ones & how many) over IRV. </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">…but I’ll nonetheless include IRV
among the methods that I offer, because it’s better
than a lot of people believe. …though its merit
& workability strongly depend on the electorate
& the candidate-lineup.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">I.e. Because it isn’t
Condorcet-complying, it’s necessary that the
electorate aren’t timid lesser-evil giveaway voters.</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Back in 2018, I was heavily involved in lefty
politics. The mayor (Ed Lee) dropped dead while
grocery shopping at a Safeway that I had been to many
times. He wasn't 500 years old; and he seemed in good
health. It was truly a surprise to everyone,
Suddenly, we had nearly a dozen local politicians with
almost no name recognition competing to be the next
mayor:</div>
<div><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_San_Francisco_mayoral_special_election"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_San_Francisco_mayoral_special_election</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The good news: the Condorcet winner (London Breed)
won the election. The bad news: it was a close
election, almost exclusively centered on identity
politics (though YIMBY vs NIMBY also played a
factor). There were three well-funded candidates
(Breed: who was "the establishment" candidate, born
and raised in the Fillmore, which USED TO BE an
affordable neighborhood in SF, and she would become
our first Black woman serving as mayor), Mark Leno
(who would have become our first openly gay mayor),
and Jane Kim (who promised to be our first
Korean-American mayor).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Having only lived here since 2011, I still
considered myself new(-ish) to the political scene. I
asked a friend (who I met in a lefty political org
here in SF) who I should vote for. He said "None of
them. They're all corrupt. Breed's funded by
Conway." I didn't know who George Conway was at the
time, but that didn't matter. I was looking for a
mainstream(-ish) candidate to put SOMEWHERE in my
ranking, so that I could evaluate the niche candidates
relative to my mainstream anchor. I pressed him: "if
someone was holding a gun to your head, and you had to
choose between Breed, Kim, or Leno, who would you
choose?". He refused to answer, despite how hard I
pressed on the issue.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The polls leading up to the election were spotty
and difficult to decipher. Most of the news coverage
was about the Breed/Leno/Kim food fight. Breed had
served as mayor for a day or two after Ed Lee died,
but there was a political food fight over her running
for mayor after getting to be the incumbent, so she
was removed as mayor. I think that helped her, since
(at least for me) it made her a bit more sympathetic
candidate, and given that the rules said she should be
mayor (as previous President of the Board of
Supervisors). Many SF voters get high and mighty
about "rule of law", and yet, the law was changed just
as soon as a Black woman took office.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>My point: I'm guessing that my activist friend was
one of the dreaded "bullet voters" that FairVote
misinforms people about. I find FairVote a flawed
organization, and I specifically think that
founder/leader Rob Richie to be a deeply unethical
(perhaps even Machiavellian) political player.
Approval voting finds consensus candidates in a way
that I think the electorate can understand. "Mark all
of the candidates you approve of, and the candidate
with the highest approval rating wins" I suspect that
approval voting is better at rooting out corruption
than RCV, and I have some more anecdotal evidence to
back me up.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>St. Louis switched their mayoral elections to
approval top-two. The primary election selects the
two candidates with the highest approval rating, and
the general election decides between the last two.
All eyes in the electoral reform community were on St.
Louis, and St. Louis also elected their first Black
woman to be their mayor:</div>
<div><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_St._Louis_mayoral_election"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_St._Louis_mayoral_election</a>
<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If you've never been to St. Louis, I'll break it
down for you. The north part of town is the flood
plain at the confluence of the Missouri and
Mississippi Rivers. It's where the poor people live,
and many of them are Black. South of Interstate 44
(which replaced "Route 66") is where one finds the
rich people, where many houses were built for
slaveowners (back in the day). The St. Louis area has
long been the fulcrum of race relations in this
country. For example, many folks know about the
predominantly Black suburb Ferguson in the flight path
of STL, also known as "Lombard". Famous Nazi
sympathizer and aviator Charles Lindbergh flew the
"Spirit of St. Louis" when he made his first solo
transcontinental flight in 1927.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>As an outsider who has mainly been through St.
Louis (many times), and who has only stayed overnight
in St. Louis a few nights, I only have a superficial
understanding of the place. But I watched the
Wikipedia articles about the election with an eagle
eye. It would seem that Lewis Cass (<<a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_E._Reed"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_E._Reed</a>>)
was the sore loser, and it appeared he was starting to
lead an anti-approval campaign in St. Louis. However,
Reed (and a couple of his cronies on the Board of
Aldermen) were caught on video accepting bribes from
undercover FBI agents. They're in prison now. <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I don't know much about Tishaura Jones, but all
outside evidence suggests she's a good-government type
who is cleaning up the politics of St. Louis. I'm
hopeful she gets re-elected in 2025, and that FairVote
doesn't try to get approval voting replaced with RCV
with the help of useful idiots that will take money in
exchange for supporting the "correct" policies. <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="auto">But an electorate that has just
enacted IRV in a referendum didn’t do so because
they want to rank Lesser-Evil over their favorite.
They enacted it because they want to rank sincerely,
to express & fully help their favorite.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Let’s support Oregon’s IRV (RCV)
referendum next year!</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Though IRV doesn’t meet the Condorcet
Criterion, it meets Mutual-Majority:</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">IRV always elects the candidate of the
largest faction of the Mutual-Majority. …The
favorite candidate of the Mutual-Majority.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">IRV didn’t “fail” in Burlington &
Alaska. It did what it’s supposed to do.</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>RCV elected the extreme candidates, rather than the
compromise. Sometimes, it elects the "good guy/gal"
candidate (like Mary Peltola), but sometimes, it
elects an incompetent candidate (like Bob Kiss), and
it seems quite likely to me that Alaska will elect an
extreme right-wing Republican candidate when Peltola
runs for reelection in 2024. Approval (and probably
STAR) will elect candidates toward the center of
public opinion, but RCV gets random when elections get
close:</div>
<div><a href="https://electowiki.org/wiki/Yee_diagram"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://electowiki.org/wiki/Yee_diagram</a><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Under approval and STAR, those of us who think of
ourselves as "left-wing" are not as likely to get
lucky every so often and get a minority candidate like
Mary Peltola (who sadly wasn't quite able to appeal to
the median voter in Alaska, it seems), but we're also
not playing Russian roulette and potentially getting a
right-wing reactionary that could be funded by foreign
adversaries. I've heard (from someone, I can't
remember who) that one can see Russia from Alaska.
:-)<br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="auto">We don’t yet have a big Condorcet
organization, or referenda, initiatives or strong
lobbying for it, but let’s support the already
ongoing enactment efforts for IRV, now named RCV.</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Let's not. FairVote isn't that big (only
$4.5MM/year in annual revenue, based on my cursory
investigation). The Center for Election Science pulls
in over $1MM/year, and is looking for new executive
director (or "CEO" as they say: <a
href="https://electionscience.org/about/careers-and-board/"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://electionscience.org/about/careers-and-board/</a>
), and I'm optimistic that they may just hire someone
who is more sympathetic to Condorcet consistency than
the prior executive director. The Equal Vote Coaltion
is a small scrappy startup, but seems to be using
their money better than the prior two orgs (and seems
far more amenable and adaptable to Internet feedback
than either of the larger orgs). Having helped a
small-ish non-profit ($10MM/year in 2010 when I
joined) become a larger organization ($60MM/year to
$70MM/year or so these days, I think), I've learned
not to get too enamored of (or intimidated by) "big
non-profits".</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If Rob Richie can prove that he's not unethical,
and come to the table with the rest of the electoral
reform community, and debate openly and honestly, then
maybe I'd consider teaming up with them. Perhaps the
FairVote Board can fire Richie, since he promised
effective steps toward proportional representation,
and hasn't achieved that after three decades. He's
only burned bridges and salted the earth for effective
reform efforts through backroom dealing (e.g. what
FairVote did in Seattle in 2022).<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>As of right now, there's someone with the username
"RRichie" that doesn't disclose their clear
conflict-of-interest on English Wikipedia, but often
makes very pro-RCV arguments (and pro-FairVote
marketing) under that name:</div>
<div><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RRichie"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RRichie</a><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Rob <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="auto"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Sep 20,
2023 at 18:24 Forest Simmons <<a
href="mailto:forest.simmons21@gmail.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">forest.simmons21@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="auto">
<div dir="auto">So called BTR-IRV, "Bottom Two
Runoff IRV" goes along those lines. </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">You probably remember "Benham"
that runs IRV elimination until there
remains a candidate undefeated by any of the
other remaining candidates.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
This reminds me of basing the Sequential
Pairwise Elimination agenda order on Top
preferences ... by using those preferences to
"de-clone" the Borda agenda order:
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">The agenda order is given by
SB(X), the Sum over all ballots B of the
first place votes of the candidates ranked
above X on B. </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">The larger SB(X), the later X
is (on average) in the rankings, and the
rearlier X is in the elimination agenda.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Sep
20, 2023, 4:56 AM Michael Ossipoff <<a
href="mailto:email9648742@gmail.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">email9648742@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>If, using voted
rankings, Sequential-Pairwise’s
comparison-order is determined by
giving, to the candidates with higher
top-count score, a later position in
the comparison-order, so that voters
don’t know what the comparison-order
will be…<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>…<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>…& if
voters’ knowledge of eachother’s
preferences is no better than it is
now in political-elections…<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>…<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>…Does that
Sequential-Pairwise election have an
offensive strategy with
gain-expectation comparable to what it
would have in MinMax, RP & CSSD?<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>…And, if so, is
there a defensive strategy to thwart
or deter that offensive strategy?<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>…That seems of
interest because Sequential-Pairwise
is so much less
computationally-demanding than the
other pairwise-count methods.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>If, using voted
rankings, Sequential-Pairwise’s
comparison-order is determined by
giving, to the candidates with higher
top-count score, a later position in
the comparison-order, so that voters
don’t know what the comparison-order
will be…<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>…<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>…& if
voters’ knowledge of eachother’s
preferences is no better than it is
now in political-elections…<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>…<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>…Does that
Sequential-Pairwise election have an
offensive strategy with
gain-expectation comparable to what it
would have in MinMax, RP & CSSD?<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>…And, if so, is
there a defensive strategy to thwart
or deter that offensive strategy?<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>…That seems of
interest because Sequential-Pairwise
is so much less
computationally-demanding than the
other pairwise-count methods.<span></span></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"> ----<br>
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a
href="https://electorama.com/em"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://electorama.com/em</a>
for list info<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
----<br>
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a
href="https://electorama.com/em" rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://electorama.com/em</a>
for list info<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
----<br>
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a
href="https://electorama.com/em" rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://electorama.com/em</a>
for list info<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">----
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://electorama.com/em" moz-do-not-send="true">https://electorama.com/em</a> for list info
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>