<div dir="ltr"><div>Hi Ted,</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks for the detailed writeup and comparison to Vote321.  I think "High5" is a clever name, and I appreciate that it's not named after a dead white guy (or maybe, perhaps, a living white guy).  I'm admittedly not a big fan of the system, though (at least, not yet).<br></div><div><br></div><div>It seems to me that the practical difference in outcomes between High5 and STAR would be so trivial as to be negligible.  It's my understanding that STAR and pretty much all of the Condorcet methods VERY RARELY show differences between them in simulations, and certainly, any contrived scenario where there's a difference between Condorcet methods and STAR with similar rankings/ratings feels contrived and highly unlikely.  My hunch is that High5's performance would be imperceptibly different than STAR (and most Condorcet methods), at a cost of much greater complexity and less mainstream political attention than STAR (if one can count a ballot measure in a small Oregon city as "mainstream").</div><div><br></div><div>In a "High5" election, I'm also not sure that any more than two or three of the frontrunners would get mainstream attention (even given the name and mechanics of the method).  My hunch is that mainstream electoral coverage would do whatever it could to simplify all races down to the fewest number possible.  </div><div><br></div><div>Here's a different pair of systems which might achieve your stated goals with High5: perhaps select five candidates to be selected via a "unified primary"[1] (or rather, an approval-based primary).  Then the top five would be running against one another for a few weeks/months before a general election, without having to also compete with the crackpots who had a successful signature campaign and managed to get on the primary ballot.  Use a Condorcet method (or a really good single-winner method) for the general election round (as in High5's final tabulation).  This would put five candidates "on the debate stage", so to speak.<br></div><div><br></div><div>There's a lot more that we could discuss about the value of two sequential elections as is customary in the United States.  In short (if I understand your original "High5" proposal correctly), it seems a mistake to try consolidating the primary and the general election.   I think I'm going to start a separate thread for the topic of primary+general elections versus consolidated general elections.<br></div><div><br></div><div><div>Rob</div>[1]  The "unified primary" is basically the approval-based system used in St. Louis:<br> <a href="https://electowiki.org/wiki/Unified_primary" target="_blank">https://electowiki.org/wiki/Unified_primary</a><br><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 12:28 PM Ted Stern <<a href="mailto:dodecatheon@gmail.com" target="_blank">dodecatheon@gmail.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 dir="ltr">I've been mulling over ways to get a Smith/Approval method into a somewhat practical form, and have taken some cues from Jameson Quinn's Vote-321.<br><br>Vote-321 is a pretty method, with a lot of strategy resistance, and if it were among the options for a new voting system (with no Condorcet method available), I would choose it immediately.<div><br></div><div>However, I have a few issues with it: vulnerability to cloning; lack of expression; and what I consider a too-small provisional subset. The latter is more of a psychological / media problem, and what I mean by "too-small" is that if only the top three first-place candidates make it past the first pass, public attention could be excessively focused on the front-runners at the cost of addressing issues raised by less popular candidates. But the too-small subset is also what enables Vote-321's vulnerability to cloning. By including at least one or two more candidates in the first pass of candidate reduction, cloning risk is reduced.<br><br>Following is what I call the <b>High 5 </b>method for three or more candidates:<br><br><b>Ballot Expression:</b><div>I prefer a 6 slot ranked ballot, equal-ranking and gaps allowed, with the rank/tiers named as follows:<br> <span id="m_3482880895404502746m_6994736686939237933m_7073340671247379916gmail-docs-internal-guid-2c7b416e-7fff-ce8f-2372-8a9c3f86ab9b"><div dir="ltr" style="margin-left:0pt" align="left"><table style="border:medium;border-collapse:collapse"><colgroup><col width="128"><col width="288"><col width="208"></colgroup><tbody><tr style="height:0pt"><td style="border-width:1pt;border-style:solid;border-color:rgb(0,0,0);vertical-align:top;padding:5pt;overflow:hidden"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.2;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:700;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline">Tier Name</span></p></td><td style="border-width:1pt;border-style:solid;border-color:rgb(0,0,0);vertical-align:top;padding:5pt;overflow:hidden"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.2;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:700;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline">Approval Status</span></p></td><td style="border-width:1pt;border-style:solid;border-color:rgb(0,0,0);vertical-align:top;padding:5pt;overflow:hidden"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.2;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-weight:700;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline">Description</span></p></td></tr><tr style="height:0pt"><td style="border-width:1pt;border-style:solid;border-color:rgb(0,0,0);vertical-align:top;padding:5pt;overflow:hidden"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.2;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline">A</span></p></td><td style="border-width:1pt;border-style:solid;border-color:rgb(0,0,0);vertical-align:top;padding:5pt;overflow:hidden"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.2;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline">Approved</span></p></td><td style="border-width:1pt;border-style:solid;border-color:rgb(0,0,0);vertical-align:top;padding:5pt;overflow:hidden"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.2;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline">Most Preferred / Best / Favorite</span></p></td></tr><tr style="height:0pt"><td style="border-width:1pt;border-style:solid;border-color:rgb(0,0,0);vertical-align:top;padding:5pt;overflow:hidden"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.2;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline">B</span></p></td><td style="border-width:1pt;border-style:solid;border-color:rgb(0,0,0);vertical-align:top;padding:5pt;overflow:hidden"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.2;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline">Approved </span></p></td><td style="border-width:1pt;border-style:solid;border-color:rgb(0,0,0);vertical-align:top;padding:5pt;overflow:hidden"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.2;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline">Good</span></p></td></tr><tr style="height:0pt"><td style="border-width:1pt;border-style:solid;border-color:rgb(0,0,0);vertical-align:top;padding:5pt;overflow:hidden"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.2;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline">C</span></p></td><td style="border-width:1pt;border-style:solid;border-color:rgb(0,0,0);vertical-align:top;padding:5pt;overflow:hidden"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.2;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline">Approved</span></p></td><td style="border-width:1pt;border-style:solid;border-color:rgb(0,0,0);vertical-align:top;padding:5pt;overflow:hidden"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.2;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline">OK / Acceptable</span></p></td></tr><tr style="height:0pt"><td style="border-width:1pt;border-style:solid;border-color:rgb(0,0,0);vertical-align:top;padding:5pt;overflow:hidden"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.2;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline">D</span></p></td><td style="border-width:1pt;border-style:solid;border-color:rgb(0,0,0);vertical-align:top;padding:5pt;overflow:hidden"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.2;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline">Disapproved</span></p></td><td style="border-width:1pt;border-style:solid;border-color:rgb(0,0,0);vertical-align:top;padding:5pt;overflow:hidden"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.2;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline">Not Preferred, but would be in their coalition (i.e. Compromise)</span></p></td></tr><tr style="height:0pt"><td style="border-width:1pt;border-style:solid;border-color:rgb(0,0,0);vertical-align:top;padding:5pt;overflow:hidden"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.2;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline">E</span></p></td><td style="border-width:1pt;border-style:solid;border-color:rgb(0,0,0);vertical-align:top;padding:5pt;overflow:hidden"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.2;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline">Disapproved</span></p></td><td style="border-width:1pt;border-style:solid;border-color:rgb(0,0,0);vertical-align:top;padding:5pt;overflow:hidden"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.2;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline">Mostly Unacceptable but Lesser Evil</span></p></td></tr><tr style="height:0pt"><td style="border-width:1pt;border-style:solid;border-color:rgb(0,0,0);vertical-align:top;padding:5pt;overflow:hidden"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.2;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline">Reject</span></p></td><td style="border-width:1pt;border-style:solid;border-color:rgb(0,0,0);vertical-align:top;padding:5pt;overflow:hidden"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.2;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline">Dispapproved</span></p></td><td style="border-width:1pt;border-style:solid;border-color:rgb(0,0,0);vertical-align:top;padding:5pt;overflow:hidden"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.2;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-variant-alternates:normal;vertical-align:baseline">Completely unacceptable</span></p></td></tr></tbody></table><br></div><div style="margin-left:0pt" align="left">Summarized, there are 3 approved ranks (Most Preferred, Good, OK), 2 disapproved ranks (compromise, lesser of two evils), and Reject. Blank ballots are counted as rejection.<br><br><b>Tabulation:</b></div><div style="margin-left:0pt" align="left"><ul><li>Total most-preferred votes per candidate (i.e. "A" votes).</li><li>Approval / Disapproval totals per candidate<br></li><li>Pairwise preference array</li><li>Optional:</li><ul><li>Tied-Approval pairwise</li><li>Tied-Disapproval (above reject) pairwise</li><li>Approved vs Disapproved/Reject pairwise</li></ul></ul><b>First-pass subset:</b></div><div style="margin-left:0pt" align="left"><ul><li><b>Top 5 candidates by most-preferred votes</b></li></ul><b>Procedure:</b></div><div style="margin-left:0pt" align="left"><ul><li>Of the top 5 most-preferred candidates are found, drop the least-approved candidate.</li><li>Among the remaining candidates, use the pairwise preference array to find the Smith Set</li><li>If more than one candidate is in the Smith Set, pick the most approved member of the set as the winner.</li></ul></div><div style="margin-left:0pt" align="left">If you start with 3 candidates, this method reduces to top-two approval.<br><br>Starting with 4 candidates, this method reduces to sorting the candidates by Approval and doing a top-three tournament: the winner is the pairwise winner of A1 versus (the pairwise winner of A2 versus A3).</div><div style="margin-left:0pt" align="left"><br></div><div style="margin-left:0pt" align="left">For 5 or more candidates, the method has a very high probability of finding the CW (if one exists) among the top five favorites, while falling back to approval in the event of a cycle among the four most-approved of those top five.<br><br>In a "jungle-primary" type of situation (though no primary is necessary), media attention would be given to at least the top 5 candidates instead of just the top two, ensuring attention to a range of viewpoints. And in the event of a large number of candidates, it would not be necessary to tabulate pairwise preferences for more than 7 or 8 top-first-ranked candidates as determined by pre-election polling, reducing tabulation complexity while retaining summability.</div><div style="margin-left:0pt" align="left"><br></div><div style="margin-left:0pt" align="left">Using most-preferred votes for the first pass has a slight anti-cloning effect, as a preference ballot would lead to a tendency toward vote splitting if one faction has too many candidates. The anti-cloning pressure is greater than in Vote-321 because of the larger range of expression.<br><br>Finally, the Smith//Approval method, when combined with the explicit approval cutoff ballot, allows enough strategy to reduce burial incentive.<br><br>I'm calling this "High 5" voting because it's descriptive of both the ranking method and the top-five most preferred first-level truncation, and it's easier to remember than Smith//Approval.<br><br>Thoughts?</div><div style="margin-left:0pt" align="left"><br></div></span></div></div></div>
----<br>
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a href="https://electorama.com/em" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://electorama.com/em</a> for list info<br>
</blockquote></div>