<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Hello Steve,</p>
<p>I got your two e-mails. I also have to clear-up with the list
manager what he is going to do with the program links I sent to
the list.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>I think I answered this question a couple of times before. But
times have changed a bit. So, only some of the following is
repetition. Basically I favor simple ordinal voting. Not
categorical voting, combined or not, with the same.</p>
<p>Firstly, classification does have a legitimate place, in
elections, but in the principle of equality, by one person one
vote.</p>
<p>However, I do not believe it is legitimate to classify or
categorise the vote. This breaks a prime rule of scientific
method, which is not to presume what one is supposed to be trying
to prove.</p>
<p>The most rampant example of this presumption is the requirement
to vote for a "party", when ones freedom may revolt from such a
divisive electoral scheme as partisan voting.</p>
<p>Technically, graded candidatures ("excellent" etc) are also a
presumption. They are defining how a voter is supposed to feel.
That is none of our business. All that is required (from the
vote), to maximise popularity, is to find out order of preference,
for which number order does the job.</p>
<p>Moreover, as Arthur North Whitehead said, a science will not get
far without mathematics (even I know that much if not much more).
And classification is an inferior scale of measurement to
ordering. If the classification is also a grading, it does not
need the imposition of views about the candidates, which the
voters themselves did not and would not make, and in no way help
them to elect the most popular candidates. At any rate, the work
is done by the ordered preferences as to how the count is summed.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>I regard proof of the Whitehead assertion to be found in my own
adult life time of study. And I am old now. Simply with a
preference or a ranked choice vote, on the part of the voter,
which looks like any other RCV but involves different instructions
to work properly, it is possible to both elect and exclude
candidates. I call this invention Binomial STV; it is not a
conventional election system, which has contradictory rules for
electing and excluding candidates.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Regards,</p>
<p>Richard Lung.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 20/03/2024 03:25, steve bosworth
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:DBAP195MB09220DD61AB0927D117F8FB8B62C2@DBAP195MB0922.EURP195.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;">P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}</style>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><span
style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Message:
3: Needless voting disappointments<br>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 09:29:54 +0000<br>
From: Richard Lung <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:voting@ukscientists.com"><voting@ukscientists.com></a><br>
To: steve bosworth <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:stevebosworth@hotmail.com"><stevebosworth@hotmail.com></a>,</span></p>
<p class="elementToProof"
style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><span
style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">"<a
href="mailto:election-methods@lists.electorama.com"
id="OWA5b22acbf-eaf8-a26d-65c6-93178a7d1bd1"
class="OWAAutoLink moz-txt-link-freetext"
style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"
moz-do-not-send="true">election-methods@lists.electorama.com</a>"</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in;"
class="elementToProof"><span
style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> </span></p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span
style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Subject:
Re: [EM] New Thread: Needless voting disappointments<br>
Message-ID:
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:d32d5c79-9620-48bc-849e-1bc157045357@ukscientists.com"><d32d5c79-9620-48bc-849e-1bc157045357@ukscientists.com></a><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span
style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br>
</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span
style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Hello
Richard,</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span
style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Thank
you for your response and l propose to answer your points in
line.<br>
<br>
R: Hello Steve,<br>
"about 50% of the voters are disappointed when using plurality
voting,<br>
and over 10% are disappointed when using STV or CPO-STV."<br>
<br>
This is about right but it would be false of the original Hare
system,<br>
making one constituency of the nation.”</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span
style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br>
</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in;"
class="elementToProof"><span
style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">1-S:
Yes, but for clarity, let's start with STV where the nation is
one constituency. For this context, however, I see using EPR
as better in respecting and revealing the "pluralist" reality
of our society that you correctly mention. This is because
ordinal "preferences" are not as expressive of each voter's
scale of values as are the evaluative, yet, still ordinal
adjectives people use all the time, such as Excellent, Very
Good, Good, Acceptable, etc. For example, a voter does not
necessarily view their 1<sup>st
</sup>preference candidate as Excellently suited for office.
Such adjectives enable each voter to express themselves more
meaningfully. Consequently, the EPR post-election report will
also inform the public much more completely. How every voter
values every candidate is published. This snapshot of all
these judgments would also enable analysts better to infer
both the numbers and intensities with which the different
campaigns in their society are being supported. What do you
think? Please a</span><span
style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(68, 50, 5);">lso
see 5-S: below</span><span
style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(201, 33, 30);">.</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span
style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br>
</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span
style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">R:
“And it did not mean the voters would have to make 500 or so
preferences.”
</span><span
style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"></span></p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span
style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br>
</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span
style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">2-S:
The same is true of EPR. However, please not that I see the
link I mentioned describing how an EPR is counted is simpler
for ordinary voters to understand than STV’s count: <a
href="https://www.jpolrisk.com/legislatures-elected-by-evaluative-proportional-representation-epr-an-algorithm-v3/"
id="OWAa4e6c0b9-8bfa-edd5-04b2-9bc14fc8b40e"
class="OWAAutoLink moz-txt-link-freetext"
style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"
moz-do-not-send="true">
https://www.jpolrisk.com/legislatures-elected-by-evaluative-proportional-representation-epr-an-algorithm-v3/</a>.
At the same time, like ordinary STV, EPR’s ballots can also be
counted so that each elected member has only one in of the
legislative body. Alternatively, each of their respective
counts have the potential to allow each elected member to have
a weighted vote in the assembly which would be exactly equal
to the total number of citizens’ ballots that had been counted
in their support. If so, this would seem to provide more
faithful representation on average for each voter. What do you
think?</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span
style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br>
</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span
style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">R:”There
would be enough variety in the modest number of preferences
made by each voter, to ensure<br>
extreme proportionality of the sort envisioned by this
writer”. </span><span
style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"></span></p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span
style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br>
</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span
style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">3-S:
Yes, but this variety would be expressed even more exactly by
using EPR.</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span
style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br>
</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span
style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">R:
“The only qualification, and an important one, is that society
has a pluralist<br>
rather than a monolithic media.</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span
style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">(Some
reformers tagged Condorcet pairing onto STV. I remember that
Dr<br>
Hill used a Condorcet pairing supplement to decide a final
run-off<br>
between runners up.)”</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span
style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">4-S:
No comment.<br>
<br>
R: “With regard to grading candidates, in my opinion, this is
a step<br>
backward from ordinal voting.’’</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span
style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br>
</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span
style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">5-S:
I’m perplexed by you thinking grade are “backward.” In the
context of my above view that grades are more expressive than
preference (please see above, 1-S), it seems that the same is
true of both of ordinal and cardinal numbers when it comes to
an adult trying briefly to express their judgments about the
suitability for office of any candidate. If anyone judging
such suitability were to give me either their “preference” or
a number, this would immediately beg the questions, Why? What
does that preference or number mean? What do you think?</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span
style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br>
</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span
style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">R:
“From the point of view of scales of measurement, the
classificatory scale is more primitive and less<br>
accurate than the ordinal scale. Cardinal numbers are more
powerful than ordinal numbers. But that is why<br>
the vote also has a count, and is not a reason for abolishing
the ordinal vote, determining the preferential sequence of the
count,</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span
style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br>
</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span
style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">6-S:
As I see it, using ordinal adjectives does not “abolish the
ordinal vote” but instead enhances it. At the same time, the
absolute necessity of using cardinal number is to count each
citizen as one, and the vote of each to continue to count as
one, to the fullest extent possible. This cardinal equality of
citizens seems best provided by the above suggestion that each
member of a legislature should have his or her exact weighted
vote: best if provided by EPR, second best if provided by
using a modified form of STV. Either would guarantee that each
voter will most likely see one of the elected candidates as
represent their hopes and concerns. The same is not true of
the “Cumulative-vote family of election systems)” you mention.
What do you think?</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span
style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br>
</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span
style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">7-S:
We started our dialogue by talking about a single national
constituency. However, please note that a constituency city
election of a seven-member council (as was the case in the
city in which I live), just over 10% of all the ballots cast
could no have help to elect any candidate if ordinary STV were
used. Therefore, needless disappointment would occur. In
contrast, if EPR were used instead, again 100% of all voters’
ballots would support the whole council in the most
informative way.</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span
style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br>
</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span
style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">I
look forward our dialogue, of course, all are invited.</span></p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span
style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Stephen<br>
<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Richard Lung.<br>
<br>
<br>
On 19/03/2024 04:49, steve bosworth wrote:<br>
><br>
> *<br>
> *<br>
><br>
> *Needless disappointments result from electing
legislative bodies<br>
> using plurality, STV, or CPO-STV*<br>
><br>
><br>
> Structurally, different portions of all the voters fail
to help elect<br>
> their favored candidate for a legislative body. For
example, when<br>
> electing a seven-member city council; about 50% of the
voters are<br>
> disappointed when using plurality voting, and over 10%
are<br>
> disappointed when using STV or CPO-STV. However, all
these<br>
> disappointments are needless because a new and better way
of voting<br>
> guarantees that _every voter_ is most likely to see one
of the elected<br>
> members as representing their hopes and concerns. This
system is<br>
> called evaluative-proportional representation (EPR):<br>
><br>
> <<a
href="https://www.jpolrisk.com/legislatures-elected-by-evaluative-proportional-representation-epr-an-algorithm-v3/"
id="OWAa76c36cd-504b-04aa-1c10-a08403205e99"
class="OWAAutoLink moz-txt-link-freetext"
style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.jpolrisk.com/legislatures-elected-by-evaluative-proportional-representation-epr-an-algorithm-v3/</a>>algorithm-v3/<br>
<br>
><br>
> Each EPR ballot invites the voter to grade the
suitability for office<br>
> of at least one of the candidates as either Excellent,
Very Good,<br>
> Good, or Acceptable. Voters can grade as many of the
candidates as<br>
> they want, and give the same grade to more than one
candidate.<br>
><br>
> All these grades are counted to assure each voter that
their one vote<br>
> is add to the total of the elected candidate who received
their<br>
> highest available grade.<br>
><br>
> What do you think of the arguments detailed in the above
link?<br>
></span></p>
<p style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0in;"
class="elementToProof"><span
style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br>
</span></p>
<div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br>
<table style="border-top: 1px solid #D3D4DE;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width: 55px; padding-top: 13px;"><a
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><img alt=""
style="width: 46px; height: 29px;"
src="https://s-install.avcdn.net/ipm/preview/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif"
moz-do-not-send="true" width="46" height="29"></a></td>
<td
style="width: 470px; padding-top: 12px; color: #41424e; font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">
Virus-free.<a
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail"
target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;"
moz-do-not-send="true">www.avast.com</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</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">https://electorama.com/em</a> for list info
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>