<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Michael,<br>
<br>
Why do you think that STAR is better than IRV (aka Hare) ?<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Chris Benham<br>
<br>
<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/04/2024 10:46 pm, Michael Ossipoff
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAOKDY5BVOt29kFvta2=kMEEAXh==91EGBJs8UoDvSR2CW=3Mzg@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<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"
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>
</body>
</html>