<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Rob,<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre style="white-space: pre-wrap; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;">A question for Chris (anyone who cares to answer), what's the best
explanation of pushover at a public URL that seems reasonably academically
rigorous (e.g. something that seems like it would pass muster as a citation
on English Wikipedia)?</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Blake Cretney (who used to be active here) had a web-page
("condorcet.org" I think it was called)<br>
that is unfortunately now extinct. I regret not copying and
storing the definitions/explanations that<br>
were there.<br>
<br>
That is where "Push-over" strategy was defined. As I recall it
said something simple like <br>
"the strategy of promoting a weak alternative for it to be beaten
by a preferred stronger one".<br>
<br>
But really I think we are in the realm of common-sense and the
bleeding obvious rather than being<br>
in awe of and deferring to academic authority. Whatever it is
exactly called, in the US political system<br>
it must be commonplace.<br>
<br>
Because (at least in some states) you have open public party
primaries. Suppose you are a supporter<br>
of party A, and either you are happy with all the candidates
running in A's primary election (or you are<br>
confidant that your favourite can win that primary without your
help, or something in between) and so<br>
you decide to instead vote in main rival party B's primary to vote
not for your sincere lesser evil but for<br>
the candidate you think would have the smallest chance of beating
the A candidate in the general election.<br>
</p>
<p>You would be using a Push-over strategy. <br>
<br>
Likewise suppose the method is plurality Top-Two Runoff. If you
are confident that your favorite can make<br>
it into the top two without your help then in the first round you
might vote for a candidate (of course preferably<br>
among the other front-runners for the second spot) that you think
most likely to lose in the runoff against your<br>
favourite. Then in the final you can vote sincerely.<br>
<br>
If the method is approval TTR, things are much easier for the
pushover strategists because they don't have to rely on<br>
on other voters to get their favourite into the final two, and
also they don't have to limit themselves to promoting<br>
just one weak candidate. <br>
<br>
If you only care about electing your favourite, the obvious
strategy is to approve your favourite and all the candidates<br>
that you are confident can neither displace your favourite out of
the top two or pairwise beat your favourite in the final.<br>
<br>
SCORE is similar. There one can choose between maximising the
chance that a weak candidate will get in to the final two,<br>
or weakening your vote for the weak candidate to just below
maximum (4 instead of 5) so as to help your favourite win the<br>
top-two pairwise comparison.<br>
<br>
In comparison with the methods I've so far mentioned in RCV (fka
IRV) the would-be pushover strategists face the greatest<br>
problems and risks. They have to rely entirely on other voters to
both get their sincere favourite into the final top two and<br>
also to overcome the strategists' own votes, for the strategists'
sincere favourite to win the final two comparison.<br>
<br>
That electowiki entry you linked to:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<h3 style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0.3em 0px 0px;
padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; overflow: hidden;
font-size: 1.2em; line-height: 1.6; font-weight: bold;
font-family: sans-serif; font-style: normal;
font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal;
letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start;
text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2;
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
white-space: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);
text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style:
initial; text-decoration-color: initial;"><span
class="mw-headline" id="Pushover">Pushover</span><span
class="mw-editsection" style="font-family: sans-serif;
user-select: none; font-size: small; font-weight: normal;
margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: baseline; line-height:
1em; unicode-bidi: isolate; margin-right: 0px;"><span
class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="margin-right:
0.25em; color: rgb(84, 89, 93);">[</span><a
href="https://electowiki.org/w/index.php?title=Tactical_voting&veaction=edit§ion=4"
class="mw-editsection-visualeditor" title="Edit section:
Pushover" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(51,
102, 204); background: none; white-space: nowrap;">edit</a><span
class="mw-editsection-divider" style="color: rgb(84, 89,
93);"><span> </span>|<span> </span></span><a
href="https://electowiki.org/w/index.php?title=Tactical_voting&action=edit§ion=4"
title="Edit section: Pushover" style="text-decoration:
none; color: rgb(51, 102, 204); background: none;
white-space: nowrap;">edit source</a><span
class="mw-editsection-bracket" style="margin-left: 0.25em;
color: rgb(84, 89, 93);">]</span></span></h3>
<p style="margin: 0.5em 0px; color: rgb(32, 33, 34);
font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal;
font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal;
font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2;
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none;
widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
white-space: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);
text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style:
initial; text-decoration-color: initial;"><b>Push-over</b><span> </span>is
a type of tactical voting that is only useful in methods that
violate<span> </span><a
href="https://electowiki.org/wiki/Monotonicity"
title="Monotonicity" style="text-decoration: none; color:
rgb(51, 102, 204); background: none;">monotonicity</a>. It
may involve a voter ranking or rating an alternative lower in
the hope of getting it elected, or ranking or rating an
alternative higher in the hope of defeating it. Also known as
a<span> </span><b>paradoxical</b><span> </span>strategy. Note
that it is usually very difficult to successfully pull off,
and often backfires (i.e. elects the pushed over candidate).</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
The first sentence looks like something I recall from that extinct
page. It is correct in the universe of pure ranking methods. But
according to apparent consensus here<br>
(and a wikipedia page you linked to) SCORE somehow doesn't
"violate monotonicity" and yet (as I've discussed) is more
vulnerable to Pushover than RCV (aka IRV)<br>
which does.<br>
<br>
Regarding the last bit, I've no idea how the author would know
that it "often backfires", or have any idea how "often" it is
attempted.<br>
<br>
Chris Benham<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<h1 style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: "Times New
Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures:
normal; font-variant-caps: normal; letter-spacing: normal;
orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal;
text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style:
initial; text-decoration-color: initial;"><br>
</h1>
<b style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: "Times New
Roman"; font-size: medium; font-style: normal;
font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal;
letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start;
text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2;
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
white-space: normal; text-decoration-thickness: initial;
text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color:
initial;">Rob Lanphier</b><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);
font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium;
font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal;
font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing:
normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);
text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style:
initial; text-decoration-color: initial; display: inline
!important; float: none;"><span> </span></span><a
href="mailto:election-methods%40lists.electorama.com?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BEM%5D%20St.%20Louis%20and%20Pushover%20%28Re%3A%20Reply%20to%20Rob%20regarding%20RCV%29&In-Reply-To=%3CCAK9hOYnPv5QaWnZhEhgAK6P08XyHdA1ew1p2fRn%2B0jD58DsUkA%40mail.gmail.com%3E"
title="[EM] St. Louis and Pushover (Re: Reply to Rob regarding
RCV)" style="font-family: "Times New Roman";
font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures:
normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400;
letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start;
text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2;
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
white-space: normal;">roblan at gmail.com</a><br style="color:
rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: "Times New Roman";
font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures:
normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400;
letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start;
text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2;
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
white-space: normal; text-decoration-thickness: initial;
text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color:
initial;">
<i style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: "Times New
Roman"; font-size: medium; font-variant-ligatures:
normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400;
letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start;
text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2;
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
white-space: normal; text-decoration-thickness: initial;
text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color:
initial;">Tue Sep 26 21:39:35 PDT 2023</i>
<hr style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: "Times New
Roman"; font-size: medium; font-style: normal;
font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal;
font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2;
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none;
widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
white-space: normal; text-decoration-thickness: initial;
text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color:
initial;">
<pre style="white-space: pre-wrap; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;">Hi Chris
Regarding former St. Louis resident Lewis Reed's preference of voting
system, I'm not sure. I suspect he was selling his preference to the
highest bidder, and since he was still the President of the St. Louis Board
of Aldermen, he presumably had influence in STL politics (until the bribery
case in court made him politically radioactive). Whatever remaining
influence Reed may still have is waning with every day he spends in an
Arkansas prison, where I believe he lives today. Something tells me that
electoral reform is the least of Reed's worries in 2023.
Regarding approval's potential vulnerability to pushover when used in a
top-two primary, I'm personally not very concerned about the theoretical
possibility. Perhaps in the far future, we'll have really sophisticated
voters who understand how to strategically influence the primary in a way
that causes top-two approval to fail in a way that causes problems. My
sense is that St. Louis (which uses top-two approval) has bigger problems
than sophisticated attempts at "pushover"
I believe that St. Louis voters just wanted a good mayor in 2021, and
approved many competitors to Lewis Reed (including Tishaura Jones and Cara
Spencer). From my analysis, it looks like the wealthier voters in the
southern portion of St. Louis (i.e. the type that pay handsomely for
produce at farmers' markets in mall parking lots on the weekends to assuage
their guilt for the collapse of the independent farming in the United
States) voted for Cara Spencer. The voters in the northern part of the
city (in the floodplain at the confluence of the Missouri and Mississippi
Rivers, which USUALLY doesn't flood very much) voted for Tishaura Jones.
Given the demographics of St. Louis (43% Black, 42.9% non-Hispanic White,
5.1% Hispanic, 4.1% Asian, 1.0% Hispanic White), it seems like a Tishaura
Jones was a great choice to succeed their longtime White mayor. Northern
St. Louis is largely Black and Hispanic, and it's in really rough shape,
despite having some fantastic old brick houses and lots of fantastic real
estate that is available for very little money (see <
<a href="https://youtu.be/SPyjYQALnrE" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://youtu.be/SPyjYQALnrE</a>>). Jones is the first Black mayor of St.
Louis since 2001, and third Black mayor that the city has ever had (and the
first Black woman in the role).
Based on my cursory research, I'm not sure the "pushover" phenomenon is
well known outside of the jargon-speaking electoral reform community (and
perhaps not even here). Note that the electowiki section about pushover
has no citations, and the "push over" section of a similar article on
English Wikipedia even has the infamous "citation needed" tag:
- <a href="https://electowiki.org/wiki/Tactical_voting#Pushover" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://electowiki.org/wiki/Tactical_voting#Pushover</a>
-
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_manipulation_of_runoff_voting#Push_over" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_manipulation_of_runoff_voting#Push_over</a>
Note: the "Push over" section appears to have had the "citation needed"
banner on it since 2009, which means that said banner is almost old enough
to get its driver's licence in many places. I have a hard time taking the
criterion too seriously given that it doesn't seem to warrant its own
article on English Wikipedia. It seems all of the important ones have
articles:
-
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_electoral_systems#Compliance_of_selected_single-winner_methods" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_electoral_systems#Compliance_of_selected_single-winner_methods</a>
A question for Chris (anyone who cares to answer), what's the best
explanation of pushover at a public URL that seems reasonably academically
rigorous (e.g. something that seems like it would pass muster as a citation
on English Wikipedia)?
Rob
p.s. having driven through St. Louis many times (and even stayed there a
couple of nights), it's not hard to guess where the powers-that-be drew the
red lines:
<a href="https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/366759e8b76c46efbf6ff9e8fff3ac0b" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/366759e8b76c46efbf6ff9e8fff3ac0b</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>