<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="auto">Never buy a fraudulently-promoted product.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
It is sometimes important to buy the better product, regardless of
how it is promoted.<br>
<br>
Say for example you are in the market for a family car. The
promoters of one tell you that<br>
in their car all its occupants have say a 99% chance of surviving
an accident (when it's really<br>
only 90%) while the promoters of a competitor honestly admit that
in their car you chance<br>
of surviving an accident is only say 70%.<br>
<br>
Which car do you buy? <br>
<br>
In this case of STAR versus Hare, the relative merits are
accessible via not-too-deep thought<br>
experiments.<br>
<br>
One is much older than its current promoters and been relatively
widely used for a longish time,<br>
while the other has just been cooked up as a "modern method" by
people who tell us that they<br>
are "experts" and that we can trust their "computer simulations".<br>
<br>
Chris <br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/04/2024 4:05 pm, Michael Ossipoff
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAOKDY5CuOyF+p6RVEXE+fuq3XYkCF8+sqyhFBU2LYnfisVNMzg@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Apr 6, 2024 at 21:47
Chris Benham <<a href="mailto:cbenhamau@yahoo.com.au"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">cbenhamau@yahoo.com.au</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">
<div>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="auto">But don’t you want the STAR initiative
next month in Eugene, Oregon to pass?</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Definitely not. It is a very bad method, worse than
Approval. </div>
</blockquote>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">But better than count-fraud.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Of course I prefer Approval to STAR.</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">
<div dir="auto"><br>
<br>
Hare is much better, and I gather there is some prospect
that Oregon can get that.</div>
</blockquote>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">At first I thought that might be a good thing,
until I found out that the IRVist-organizations aren’t
willing to come-clean & choose honesty.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Never buy a fraudulently-promoted product.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Did you hear that, Oregon & Nevada?</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">
<div dir="auto"><br>
<br>
<a
href="https://fairvoteaction.org/ranked-choice-voting-could-be-coming-to-oregon/"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://fairvoteaction.org/ranked-choice-voting-could-be-coming-to-oregon/</a><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="auto">…&, unlike the dishonesty &
fraud of FairVote, the EqualVote people have been
honest.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
If the authors of their online propaganda are honest, then
they are quite stupid and/or misguided.</div>
</blockquote>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">They’re younger. FairVote is just outright
dishonest.</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">
<div>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Chris<br>
<br>
</p>
<div>On 7/04/2024 5:22 am, Michael Ossipoff wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="auto">I didn’t answer your other question:</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">
<p dir="auto"><br>
</p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">
<div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">
<div>
<p dir="auto"> And surely anyone here on
this list can nominate any method they
choose (and have it
accepted/acknowledged) regardless of
whether or not the method's supporters
want it nominated.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Yes, I have to agree that that
sounds fair. </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">But don’t you want the STAR
initiative next month in Eugene, Oregon to pass?</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">We’re mostly Condorcetists here.
STAR would finish below everything but IRV &
Plurality. It would finish 3rd-from-bottom.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">The IRVists would call attention to
that in Eugene.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">I don’t think you want that any more
than I do.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">EqualVote has worked long & hard
on that initiative.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">…&, unlike the dishonesty &
fraud of FairVote, the EqualVote people have been
honest.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Of course anyone can nominate
anything, because the poll would lose
democratic-legitimacy & if I tried to say
otherwise. But surely you don’t want to do that to
them. </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Anyway, wouldn’t it be a step up, to
demonstrate in Eugene that there are better things
than Plurality?</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">
<div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">
<div>
<p><br>
<br>
Chris Benham<br>
<br>
<br>
</p>
<div>On 6/04/2024 10:46 pm, Michael
Ossipoff wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">This is to acknowledge
the nominations of
Smith//Default-Approval,
Smith//Explicit-Approval,
Margins-Sorted Approval, &
Smith//DAC.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">I’d say include STAR,
because that’s what its advocates
would want. …or would they? Its
enactment is going to be voted-on in
Eugene next month, & what if it
finishes low here? That would be worse
for the Eugene initiative than not
including it.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Of course showing voters
about methods’ popularity here is my
stated-purpose for the poll, & the
fact that it’s about to be voted on
for enactment would seem to suggest
including it. </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">But the advocates of
STAR have been working hard,
completely in good faith, & STAR
is a lot better than IRV. Those are
two good reasons to let EqualVote
decide on STAR’s inclusion in the
poll.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">I’ll ask the EqualVote
group, & go by what they say.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">(In fact STAR, while
more complicated than Approval, has
nothing like the amount of
count-complexity of Condorcet, or the
consequent amount of count-insecurity
& count-fraud vulnerability. I
personally don’t propose STAR, because
I regard it as an inbetween compromise
between Approval & the
ranked-methods, & I want the
absolutely minimal. (I only propose
Condorcet to jurisdictions where
people insist on rankings.) …but, by
my simplicity-standard, STAR scores
high, even though I don’t propose it.)</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">So the nominations list
so-far is now (listed in order of
nomination):</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Approval</div>
<div dir="auto">RP(wv)</div>
<div dir="auto">Schulze</div>
<div dir="auto">IRV</div>
<div dir="auto">Plurality</div>
<div dir="auto">MinMax(wv)</div>
<div dir="auto">Black</div>
<div dir="auto">Baldwin </div>
<div dir="auto">Benham</div>
<div dir="auto">Woodall</div>
<div dir="auto">Schwartz-Woodall</div>
<div dir="auto">Smith//Approval (of all
ranked)</div>
<div dir="auto">Smith//Approval (of what
is specified)</div>
<div dir="auto">Margin-Sorted Approval</div>
<div dir="auto">Smith//DAC</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On
Sat, Apr 6, 2024 at 04:03 Chris
Benham <<a
href="mailto:cbenhamau@yahoo.com.au" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">cbenhamau@yahoo.com.au</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">
<div>
<p><br>
I would like to nominate
several methods.<br>
<br>
Smith//Approval (Ranking):<br>
<br>
Voters rank from the top only
those candidates they
"approve", equal-ranking
allowed,<br>
the most approved member of
the voted Smith set wins.<br>
<br>
Smith//Approval (specified
cutoff):<br>
<br>
Voters rank from the top
however many candidates they
wish and can also specify an
approval<br>
cutoff/threshold. Default
approval is only for
candidates ranked below no
others (i.e. ranked top<br>
or equal-top).<br>
The most approved member of
the Smith set wins.<br>
<br>
Margins Sorted Approval
(specified cutoff):<br>
<br>
Voters rank from the top
however many candidates they
wish and can also specify an
approval<br>
cutoff/threshold. Default
approval is only for
candidates ranked below no
others (i.e. ranked top<br>
or equal-top).<br>
<br>
A Forrest Simmons invention.
Candidates are listed in
approval score order and if
any adjacent pairs<br>
are pairwise out of order then
this is corrected by flipping
the out-of-order pair with the
smallest<br>
margin. If there is a tie for
this we flip the less approved
pair. Repeat until there are
no adjacent pairs<br>
of candidates that are
pairwise out of order, then
elect the highest-ordered
candidate.<br>
<br>
Smith//:DAC<br>
<br>
Voters rank from the top
however many candidates they
wish, equal-ranking allowed.<br>
Eliminate candidates not in
the Smith set and then apply
Woodall's Descending
Acquiescing Coalitions method.<br>
<br>
There is a method I hate that
is apparently contending in
the real world: "STAR". Given
the stated purpose of <br>
this poll, is there a case for
including it?<br>
<br>
Chris Benham<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"><b
style="font-family:"Times New Roman";font-size:medium;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;color:rgb(0,0,0)">Michael
Ossipoff</b><span
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;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;float:none;display:inline!important;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span
style="font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span></span><a
href="mailto:election-methods%40lists.electorama.com?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BEM%5D%20Poll%20on%20voting-systems%2C%0A%20to%20inform%20voters%20in%20upcoming%20enactment-elections&In-Reply-To=%3CCAOKDY5BkSGJkX%3D7zWXBr2t1SBNVMNj96wm-T8ubvr_wGM5h51w%40mail.gmail.com%3E"
title="[EM] Poll on voting-systems, to inform voters in upcoming enactment-elections"
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;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">email9648742
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;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial">
<i
style="font-family:"Times New Roman";font-size:medium;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;color:rgb(0,0,0)">Wed
Apr 3 22:13:28 PDT 2024</i><span
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;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;float:none;display:inline!important;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);color:rgb(0,0,0)"></span>
<p
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;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br>
</p>
<hr
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;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<pre
style="white-space:pre-wrap;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;font-family:monospace;color:rgb(0,0,0)">EM used to do a lot of polls, but now never does. So I wouldn’t propose
one, if it weren’t for the fact that, this year, the voters of at least two
states are going to vote on whether to enact a certain voting-system.
It seems to me—tell me if I’m wrong—that those people have a right to know
how people familiar with voting-systems feel about the relative merits of
some voting-systems.
So, though I claim that polls are valuable for demonstrating the experience
of using the voting systems, & how they work, & what they’ll do—& are
therefore useful & worthwhile for their own sake—this poll that I now
propose isn’t a poll for its own sake.
It is, as I said, proposed for the important practical purpose of letting
the voters in the upcoming enactment-elections know how we feel about the
relative merits of some voting-systems, including the one that they’re
about to vote on the enactment of.
The voting-method for the poll:
It seems to me that Schulze is the most popular ranked voting-system, among
the people at EM.
…& it seems to me that the last time we voted on EM’s collective favorite
voting-system, Approval won.
Those seem the top-two, in EM popularity.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>