<div><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 01:43 Michael Garman <<a href="mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us">michael.garman@rankthevote.us</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 dir="auto">>> <span style="font-family:-apple-system,"helvetica neue";word-spacing:1px;background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);border-color:rgb(49,49,49);color:rgb(49,49,49)">Consistently, in every Condorcet or STAR Internet poll, the Republican finishes LAST. Every time. The Green or Bernie is usually the CW, at the top of the finishing order.</span><br><br>Because the population taking a STAR or Condorcet internet poll is in no way representative of the overall electorate, much as I’d like for those findings to be true. </div><div dir="auto"></div></blockquote><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Ah yes, it’s always those other people :-) </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Greens & Bernie nearly always CW. Republicans consistently, always, finishing at the very bottom. That would take a lot of sampling bias.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><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 dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">>> <span style="font-family:-apple-system,helveticaneue;background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);border-color:rgb(0,0,0);color:rgb(0,0,0)">You must be looking at different polls from the ones Noam Chomsky & many other expert commentators looked at.</span><br><br>I must be! In every poll I’ve seen for this cycle, third party candidates (other than the lunatic Kennedy Jr) don’t even crack double digits! Care to provide the polls you’re talking about?</div></blockquote><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I’ve never, ever, been asked or invited to vote in a mass-media poll that allowed a Green as a choice. …& nearly all mass media polls ask whom you’d vote for it were today.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">The only polls that ask me whom I like more are when the Democrats ask which of Biden or Trump I prefer.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I’ve never received any that mention Jill.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">You’re probably referring to vote %. Right, because you’re going to vote for Joe. ..& then say it means something when Greens get few votes. :-)</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><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 dir="auto"></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">>> <span style="font-family:-apple-system,helveticaneue;background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);border-color:rgb(0,0,0);color:rgb(0,0,0)">Polls always indicate that people want better than what the Republocrats allow. …& more & different parties.</span></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-family:-apple-system,helveticaneue;background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);border-color:rgb(0,0,0);color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br></span></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-family:-apple-system,helveticaneue;background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);border-color:rgb(0,0,0);color:rgb(0,0,0)">Agreed! Like you, I want a leftist party. That doesn’t mean one has any chance of winning the 2024 election.</span></div></blockquote><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">… because you’re voting for Biden.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><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 dir="auto"><span style="font-family:-apple-system,helveticaneue;background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);border-color:rgb(0,0,0);color:rgb(0,0,0)"></span></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 dir="auto"><span style="font-family:-apple-system,helveticaneue;background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);border-color:rgb(0,0,0);color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br></span></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-family:-apple-system,helveticaneue;background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);border-color:rgb(0,0,0);color:rgb(0,0,0)">>> </span><span style="font-family:-apple-system,helveticaneue;background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);border-color:rgb(0,0,0);color:rgb(0,0,0)">Check the Harpers issue after each Dubya victory, to find out about count-fraud.</span></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">The alleged fraud would have tipped the election from R to D</div></blockquote><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">How very odd, then, that it was reported as doing the opposite :-) Harpers reported mountains of evidence of large-scale count-fraud in Bush’s favor.</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"></div></blockquote><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">You mention Nader. He pointed that the vote isn’t split by the honest voters. It’s split by the dishonest voters who hold their noses & vote for someone they don’t like or want.</div><div dir="auto"><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 dir="auto"> </div></blockquote><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><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 dir="auto">which I suspect you’d argue wouldn’t make any difference if you subscribe to the notion that the two major parties are the same. It didn’t cost Ralph Nader the presidency! </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;color:rgb(34,34,34)"><span>On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 10:32 AM Michael Ossipoff <<a href="mailto:email9648742@gmail.com" target="_blank">email9648742@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span><br></p></div></div></div></div><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><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 01:00 Michael Garman <<a href="mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us" target="_blank">michael.garman@rankthevote.us</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 dir="auto">I don’t think they’re our only potential choices in a vacuum , but I do think they’re the only people who have a chance of winning the election this year. Big difference. Speaking of the polls, I think you’ll find they support this conclusion. </div><div dir="auto"></div></blockquote><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"></div></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto"><div><span style="font-family:-apple-system,helveticaneue;font-size:16px;font-style:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration:none;float:none;display:inline!important;background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);border-color:rgb(0,0,0);color:rgb(0,0,0)">You must be looking at different polls from the ones Noam Chomsky & many other expert commentators looked at.</span></div><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><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="auto">Consistently, in every Condorcet or STAR Internet poll, the Republican finishes LAST. Every time. The Green or Bernie is usually the CW, at the top of the finishing order.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Sure when election like the upcoming on approaches people start topvoting Biden, & he starts topping the finishing-order. But guess what: The Republican remains at BOTTOM.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Polls always indicate that people want better than what the Republocrats allow. …& more & different parties.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Polls in the mass-media never ask people to choose between Democrat & Green. …or their policies. Everything your TV spoonfeeds you is about Democrats & Republicans.. with the implication that they’re all there is. That’s true of NPR too. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">The two choices. Bullshit.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Yes, the Republicrats are the only ones who have a chance of winning the upcoming election…if that’s all you vote for. :-)</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Neither evil (lesser nor greater) is liked. So why the hell is everyone voting for one of them?? </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">When you’re told that two odious & unliked liars are the two choices…what’s wrong with this picture??? It’s nonsense.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Yes, one of those two will win…because everyone believes that they must vote for them.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">…sometimes with a little help from count-fraud? Sure. Check the Harpers issue after each Dubya victory, to find out about count-fraud.</div></div></div><div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"> </div><div dir="auto"><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 dir="auto"><br clear="all"><br clear="all"><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;color:rgb(34,34,34)"><span>On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 9:57 AM Michael Ossipoff <<a href="mailto:email9648742@gmail.com" target="_blank">email9648742@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span><br></p></div></div></div></div><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><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 00:19 Michael Garman <<a href="mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us" target="_blank">michael.garman@rankthevote.us</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 dir="auto">> <span style="font-family:-apple-system,"helvetica neue";word-spacing:1px;background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);border-color:rgb(49,49,49);color:rgb(49,49,49)">The pessimism of lesser-evil voters is astounding.</span></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-family:-apple-system,"helvetica neue";word-spacing:1px;background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);border-color:rgb(49,49,49);color:rgb(49,49,49)"><br></span></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-family:-apple-system,"helvetica neue";word-spacing:1px;background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);border-color:rgb(49,49,49);color:rgb(49,49,49)">You say pessimism; I say realism. If only two objectionable candidates are viable, it’s only natural to pick the less objectionable one. </span></div></blockquote><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Of course. Some mistakes are natural.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Realism??</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">You think it’s realistic to believe two evil are really our only choices??</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">It’s nonsense. You think most voters want an an evil?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">People want better parties. The policies that people want are not the Republocratic policies.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Chomsky has long pointed out that the public are much more progressive than the Republicrats & their policies.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Look at the Greens’ platform. It’s closer to what polling consistently shows that people want.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Don’t believe the bullshit about “ The Two Choices”.</div></div></div><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 dir="auto"><span style="font-family:-apple-system,"helvetica neue";word-spacing:1px;background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);border-color:rgb(49,49,49);color:rgb(49,49,49)"></span></div><div dir="auto"><br clear="all"><div dir="auto"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;color:rgb(34,34,34)"><span>On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 9:12 AM Michael Ossipoff <<a href="mailto:email9648742@gmail.com" target="_blank">email9648742@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span><br></p></div></div></div></div><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><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 23:29 Chris Benham <<a href="mailto:cbenhamau@yahoo.com.au" target="_blank">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)"><u></u>
<div>
<p><br>
</p><blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="auto">Different topic: In a different post, you said
that Approval tend to favor centrists. FairVote says that, but
it isn’t true.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">In this country, Centrist are candidates between
the Democrat & the Republican.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
That must be a very tight squeeze.</div></blockquote><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">:-D</div><div dir="auto"><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 dir="auto"><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">But Approval favors the voter-median.</blockquote>
<br>
That is what I meant.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">The Democrats & Republicans are a very, very
long way from the voter-median, which is Progressive.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
I hope you are right.</div></blockquote><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">But progressives can’t seem to let go of their awful lesser-evil.</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>
<blockquote type="cite">Because if they do agree with you then
they will all just vote the same set of acceptable candidates
above all the others
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">If all progressives had that kind of
information, which candidate to combine on, then VF1 would
work fine.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I didn't say "candidate" singular, I said "set of candidates" that
they can vote together above all others, in whatever order they
like.<br>
</div></blockquote><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">…if they can count on eachother’s solidarity. I used to point that out, when I was defending Hare. But some supporters of the more distant candidates you like might transfer the other way if they get eliminated.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">A mutual-majority are safe, but there isn’t always mutuality…& that’s when sincerity is regretted.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Probably one progressive’s voters will transfer to another progressive. But, when there are unacceptables, then “probably” isn’t good enough. One should *maximally* protect the acceptables. …often that requires favorite-burial.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I’ve seen the sincerity-regret in the only IRV poll that I observed. It illustrated that their use of IRV was a mistake. You lose the CW because you ranked sincerely. Not good.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">They should have used RP(wv). (In case there might be a natural circular-tie, RP is better than MinMax.)</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I like Hare for Pizza toppings & movies. Not for public political elections or polls.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">IRV isn’t Hare. It’s *FairVote* Hare. Their dishonest promotion makes it effectively a different method.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><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 dir="auto"><br>
And a lot of voters are interested in doing other things with
their vote other than just maximising the chance that an
"acceptable"<br>
candidate will win.</div></blockquote><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Yes, a lot of voters are making a big mistake. Lesser-evil giveaway-suckers.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Yes, some regard evil as acceptable if it’s “lesser”. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">There was a novel called _I’ve been down so long, it looks like up to me_.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Sad.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">The pessimism of lesser-evil voters is astounding.</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"><p></p></div><div><p dir="auto"><br>
<br>Michael
</p></div></blockquote></div></div><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>
<div>On 11/04/2024 3:25 pm, Michael Ossipoff
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">You’re right—The runoff messes up STAR’s strategy
with unacceptable candidates too.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">But IRV shares the problem. I most non-wv
Condorcet have it too, if there might be successful burial
(& there might easily be undeterred burial with most non wv
Condorcet.)</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">So it isn’t a problem of only STAR.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">…& the ranked-methods have their completely
prohibitive count-fraud vulnerability problem, due to their
complex count.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">So I ranked STAR over the ranked methods.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Different topic: In a different post, you said
that Approval tend to favor centrists. FairVote says that, but
it isn’t true.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">In this country, Centrist are candidates between
the Democrat & the Republican. But Approval favors the
voter-median.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">The Democrats & Republicans are a very, very
long way from the voter-median, which is Progressive.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">As I keep saying, Approval’s Myerson-Weber
equilibrium is at the voter-median. Approval will soon home-in
on the CW.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at
19:59 Chris Benham <<a href="mailto:cbenhamau@yahoo.com.au" target="_blank">cbenhamau@yahoo.com.au</a>>
wrote:</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">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="auto">IRV? Try to rank the acceptables in
order of winnability. …trying & hoping to match
the ranking-order of the other preferrers of some of
your acceptables.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
It sounds like you are talking about a situation where
there are no known clear front-runners</div>
</blockquote>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">If we knew who the frontrunners are, VF1
(Vote-For-1, Plurality) would work fine.</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"> </div>
</blockquote>
<div dir="auto"><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 dir="auto">and the supporters of the candidates you
deem acceptable don't<br>
fully agree with you about which candidates are acceptable
and which are not.<br>
<br>
Because if they do agree with you then they will all just
vote the same set of acceptable candidates above all the
others </div>
</blockquote>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">If all progressives had that kind of
information, which candidate to combine on, then VF1 would
work fine.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">But yes, IRV & VF1 are alike in that way,
sharing the same problem (admittedly worse in VF1.).</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">But who wants that problem? …especially when
paying the price of a complex count & its consequences.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><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 dir="auto">and benefit from the method's compliance
with<br>
Clone-Winner. And if there are known front-runners and
you insist on voting super-safe then I suppose you can
top-rank the same Compromise candidate you<br>
would in FPP.</div>
</blockquote>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Exactly ! Favorite-burial defensive-strategy,
in both methods.</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>
Not a big burden to lose sleep over and nothing like the
STAR nightmare. Overall the strategic risk of voting
sincerely in Hare is much lower.</div>
</blockquote>
<div dir="auto">Star’s runoff brings big strategy-problems, as
do many other methods, including IRV & margins
Condorcet, etc.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">But at least it doesn’t share ranked-methods’
prohibitive count-fraud insecurity & vulnerability.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">You know…the lesser of two evils. Well, I
don’t choose evils, & I don’t propose STAR. But I ranked
it over the ranked-methods, in our poll, in which I’ve just
now voted.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">I wouldn’t propose a ranked method unless a
jurisdiction insisted on one. I’d then offer RP(wv), or
maybe MinMax(wv), if they wanted something even simpler than
RP.</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 dir="auto"><br>
<br>
Michael <br>
<br>
</p>
<div>On 11/04/2024 10:56 am, Michael Ossipoff wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Apr 10,
2024 at 18:04 Chris Benham <<a href="mailto:cbenhamau@yahoo.com.au" target="_blank">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>Michael wrote:<br>
<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="auto">But STAR is better than Hare
because:</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">It retains some amount Score’s
merit.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
No it doesn't. Score meets Favorite Betrayal
and Participation. STAR trashes those just for
Condorcet Loser. </div>
</blockquote>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">I said “some”, not “all”.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">e.g. If there are unacceptable
candidates, then just give max to the acceptables,
& zero to the unacceptables.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">IRV? Try to rank the acceptables in
order of winnability. …trying & hoping to
match the ranking-order of the other preferrers of
some of your acceptables.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Questionable guesswork. An
intractable strategic morass.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><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 dir="auto"><br>
<br>
I could even make up a new criterion just to
encapsulate the horror of STAR.<br>
<br>
The Favourite Ultra-Betrayal Criterion:<br>
<br>
*Voters should never have any strategic
incentive to vote their sincere favourite as low
as possible*.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Yes,, & isn’t that true with
*any* runoff? It occurred to me too, I don’t like
it. I much prefer Score to STAR. … completely
reject runoff with Approval. …unless a
jurisdiction insists on it.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">I much prefer Approval to Score,
for minimalness & unarbitrariness.</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>
Hare should be much easier to sell to anyone
with any intelligence or common sense because
STAR is obviously<br>
so silly and arbitrary.</div>
</blockquote>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">See above.</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>
Where as Hare just seeks to replace the Single
Non-Transferable Vote with the Single
Transferable Vote, keeping compliance<br>
with Plurality, Dominant Candidate, Clone-Loser,
Later-no-Harm and Later-no-Help but losing
Participation and Mono-Raise to gain <br>
Dominant Coalition (and therefore Majority for
Solid Coalitions) and Dominant Mutual Third and
Clone-Winner.<br>
<br>
It has what Woodall referred to as a "maximal
set of properties". It's ok not to like it if
you are a fundamentalist about some criterion<br>
compliance it doesn't have (like Condorcet or
FBC) but not to suggest that complete garbage
like STAR is in some way preferable.</div>
<div>
<p><br>
<br>
Chris Benham<br>
<br>
<br>
</p>
<div>On 11/04/2024 5:04 am, Michael Ossipoff
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue,
Apr 9, 2024 at 17:31 Chris Benham <<a href="mailto:cbenhamau@yahoo.com.au" target="_blank">cbenhamau@yahoo.com.au</a>>
wrote:</div>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">[quote]</div>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Score is
Approval with a "I wish to weaken the
effect of my vote for the sake of being
more sincere/expressive" box/button.</div>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">[/quote]</div>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">If
that’s how you want to vote in Score,
then suit yourself.</div>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">The
right use of Score:</div>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Use only
min & max ratings. i.e. Use Score as
Approval.</div>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">…with
the difference that, when it’s uncertain
whether or not a candidate deserves
approval, you can give hir partial
approval, by an intermediate
point-rating.</div>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Nice,
sometimes convenient, because,
otherwise, the only way to give someone
partial approval would be
probabilistically.</div>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">But
Score loses Approval’s absolute
minimalness, & unique
unarbitrariness.</div>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Much
better to let the voters deal with such
things for themselves with the
absolutely minimal handtool, than to use
some arbitrary & (somewhat or
greatly) complicated definition, rule
& count. …with the consequent
expense & count-fraud vulnerability.</div>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr"><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>
<div lang="x-unicode">
<p dir="auto"> So it is
strategically equivalent to
Approval while being more
complicated and less fair.</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div dir="auto">More complicated, yes.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">I strongly oppose a runoff
for Approval, but some jurisdictions
might insist on one. </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">…likewise Score. </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">It’s true that it somewhat
increases Condorcet-efficiency &
Social-Utility (SU), but it brings great
strategy-complication, including the
loss of FBC compliance.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">But STAR is better than
Hare because:</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">It retains some amount
Score’s merit.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">It’s much, much simpler
than Hare, resulting in much better
count-fraud security.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">It’s much less expensive
to administer & implement than Hare.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">It’s much simpler to
describe its workings when proposing it.</div>
<div dir="auto"><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>
<div lang="x-unicode">
<p dir="auto"><br>
<br>
And Approval has a quite good
reputation here because it meets
Favorite Betrayal (aka FBC) and
compared with FPP the winner<br>
will strongly tend to have higher
social utility and be much more
likely a sincere Condorcet
winner. Also, and not
unrelatedly, <br>
it has a bias toward centrists
that some people think is
wonderful.<br>
<br>
But some people seem to think that
adding a Top-Two Runoff (automated
in the case of STAR) to Score (to
make STAR) is just<br>
a harmless little gimmick that
just makes the method "a bit more
accurate", brings it into
compliance with Condorcet Loser<br>
and so must make it more
"Condorcet efficient".
("Sky-high" according to CLC
here).<br>
<br>
But actually it makes the method
profoundly different and very bad.
It seems to me that the inventors
of STAR must have been <br>
motivated by three priorities:<br>
<br>
(1) the method isn't Hare, <br>
<br>
(2) the method, in a purely
technical and completely useless
way, apparently meets Mono-raise
(aka Monotonicity).<br>
<br>
(3) subject to being saleable to
and understood by not-so-deep
thinkers, the method be as bad as
possible.<br>
<br>
From the "equal-vote" website:
<a href="https://www.equal.vote/" target="_blank">https://www.equal.vote/</a><br>
<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"><span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;font-size:16px;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(47,47,47)">Ranked
Choice Voting, where voters rank
candidates in order of
preference has been lauded as a
solution, but in elections where
the third candidate is actually
competitive,<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> </span></span><a rel="noopener" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhO6jfHPFQU&t=169s" style="box-sizing:border-box;margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;outline:0px;font-weight:bold;font-style:normal;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;vertical-align:baseline;text-decoration:underline;font-size:16px;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;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);color:rgb(42,162,179)" target="_blank">vote-splitting
remains a serious issue</a><span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;font-size:16px;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(47,47,47)"><span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> </span>and RCV only offers a
marginal improvement compared to
a primary and general election
with Choose-One Plurality
voting.</span></blockquote>
<p> </p>
<blockquote type="cite"><span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;font-size:16px;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(47,47,47)">Luckily,
many voting methods are can
effectively prevent
vote-splitting. As it turns out,
when voters can weigh in on each
candidate individually, when all
ballot data is counted, and when
voters are able to show equal
preference, vote-splitting can
be eliminated. All voting
methods which do this pass the</span><span style="box-sizing:border-box;margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;outline:0px;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;vertical-align:baseline;font-size:16px;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;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);color:rgb(47,47,47)"> </span><a rel="noopener" href="https://electowiki.org/wiki/Equal_Vote_Criterion" style="box-sizing:border-box;margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;outline:0px;font-weight:bold;font-style:normal;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;vertical-align:baseline;text-decoration:underline;font-size:16px;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;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);color:rgb(42,162,179)" target="_blank">Equal
Vote Criterion</a><span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;font-size:16px;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(47,47,47)">,
including </span><a rel="noopener" href="https://www.starvoting.us/star" style="box-sizing:border-box;margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;outline:0px;font-weight:bold;font-style:normal;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;vertical-align:baseline;text-decoration:underline;font-size:16px;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;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);color:rgb(42,162,179)" target="_blank">STAR
Voting</a><span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;font-size:16px;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(47,47,47)">,...</span></blockquote>
<br>
The "Equal Vote Criterion" is just
propaganda nonsense: <a href="https://electowiki.org/wiki/Equal_Vote_Criterion" target="_blank">https://electowiki.org/wiki/Equal_Vote_Criterion</a><br>
<blockquote type="cite"><span style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px;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(32,33,34)">The
Equal Vote Criterion or<span style="font-family:sans-serif"> </span></span><a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.equal.vote/theequalvote" style="text-decoration:none;background-image:url("");background-size:0.857em;padding-right:1em;font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px;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;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);color:rgb(51,102,204);background-position:right center;background-repeat:no-repeat no-repeat" target="_blank">Equality
Criterion</a><span style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px;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(32,33,34)"><span style="font-family:sans-serif"> </span>is
a<span style="font-family:sans-serif"> </span></span><a href="https://electowiki.org/wiki/Voting_system_criterion" title="Voting system criterion" style="text-decoration:none;background-image:none;font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px;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;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);color:rgb(51,102,204)" target="_blank">voting
method criterion</a><span style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px;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(32,33,34)"><span style="font-family:sans-serif"> </span>which
requires that a voting method
ensure that every voter may cast
a vote which is as powerful as a
vote cast by any other voter.
Voting methods which pass the
Equal Vote Criterion do not
exhibit<span style="font-family:sans-serif"> </span></span><a href="https://electowiki.org/wiki/Vote-splitting" title="Vote-splitting" style="text-decoration:none;background-image:none;font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px;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;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);color:rgb(51,102,204)" target="_blank">vote-splitting</a><span style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px;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(32,33,34)"><span style="font-family:sans-serif"> </span>or
the "Spoiler Effect," ensuring
that every vote can cast an<span style="font-family:sans-serif"> </span></span><a href="https://electowiki.org/wiki/Equally_Weighted_Vote" title="Equally Weighted Vote" style="text-decoration:none;background-image:none;font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px;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;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);color:rgb(51,102,204)" target="_blank">equally
weighted vote</a><span style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px;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(32,33,34)">.</span></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px;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(32,33,34)">Choose-One
Plurality Voting (First Past the
Post) and Instant Runoff Voting
(often referred to as Ranked
Choice Voting) do not satisfy
the Equal Vote Criterion.</span></blockquote>
<br>
This is just dishonest blather. If
anything meets this very vague and
confused "criterion" IRV (aka Hare)
certainly does. <br>
<br>
The classic scenario that motivated
some people get negative about Hare
(and also methods like Min-Max
Margins):<br>
<br>
49 Bush<br>
24 Gore<br>
27 Nader>Gore<br>
<p>Gore>Bush 51-49,
Bush>Nader 49-27, Nader>Gore
27-24.<br>
<br>
Hare eliminates Gore and elects
Bush, so the Nader voters whose
Gore> Bush preference was
strong had incentive to use the
Compromise <br>
strategy and vote Gore>Nader
("betraying" their sincere
favourite). If the method was
Approval they could have approved
both Nader and<br>
Gore, preventing the election of
Bush without having to vote their
sincere favorite below equal-top.<br>
<br>
But in this type of scenario STAR
does no better than Hare. The
Nader voters would have incentive
to give Nader zero points.<br>
<br>
"Traditionally" Hare's
vulnerability to Push-over
strategy has said to be a result
of it's failure of Mono-raise.
But STAR is much more vulnerable<br>
to Push-over.<br>
<br>
Say you are sure that your
favourite will make the final two.
In that case then you have
incentive to give every candidate
that you are sure your<br>
favourite can beat 4 or 5 stars.
If 5 stars then you are relying on
you favourite winning the runoff
without your help, but if 4 stars
then you might<br>
fail to get one of the predicted
sure-loser turkeys into the final.<br>
<br>
In a Hare Push-over strategy
scenario, the strategists rely on
their favourite winning the runoff
against their own votes, i.e. with
their votes supporting<br>
the turkey against their
favourite. This makes it much more
risky (more likely to backfire)
and difficult to coordinate than
is the case with STAR.<br>
<br>
The equal-vote site has a link to
a quite ok video on the Favorite
Betrayal Criterion. I find that
weird and misleading, because STAR
badly fails FBC.<br>
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtKAScORevQ" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtKAScORevQ</a><br>
<br>
From <a href="https://www.starvoting.org/" target="_blank">https://www.starvoting.org/</a><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<h2 style="box-sizing:border-box;margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:1rem;font-family:Montserrat,sans-serif;font-weight:700;line-height:1.2;font-size:2.25rem;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:left;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);color:rgb(2,106,134)">Why
STAR Voting? </h2>
<p style="box-sizing:border-box;margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:1rem;line-height:1.7;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:left;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="box-sizing:border-box;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif">Voting
reform is the keystone. A
single cause with the
potential to empower us to be
more effective on every other
issue we care about. </span></p>
<ul style="box-sizing:border-box;margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:1rem;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:left;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<li style="box-sizing:border-box;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif">
<p style="box-sizing:border-box;margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:1rem;line-height:1.7;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"><a rel="noopener" href="https://www.starvoting.org/strategic_voting" style="box-sizing:border-box;text-decoration:none;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;background-color:transparent;color:rgb(42,162,179)" target="_blank">Honesty
is the best strategy.
Strategic voting is not
incentivized.</a></p>
</li>
<li style="box-sizing:border-box;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif">
<p style="box-sizing:border-box;margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:1rem;line-height:1.7;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"><a rel="noopener" href="https://www.starvoting.org/how_to_vote" style="box-sizing:border-box;text-decoration:none;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;background-color:transparent;color:rgb(42,162,179)" target="_blank">Even
if your favorite can’t
win, your vote helps
prevent your worst case
scenario.</a></p>
</li>
<li style="box-sizing:border-box;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif">
<p style="box-sizing:border-box;margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:1rem;line-height:1.7;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"><a rel="noopener" href="https://www.starvoting.org/accuracy" style="box-sizing:border-box;text-decoration:none;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;background-color:transparent;color:rgb(42,162,179)" target="_blank">Highly
accurate, no matter how
many candidates/parties
are in the race.</a></p>
</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<br>
I'm not sure exactly what "accurate"
is supposed to mean, but I refute
the suggestion that these claims are
more true of STAR than they are of
Hare.<br>
<br>
In the poll I will vote STAR below
Hare and Approval and all the
Condorcet methods.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div lang="x-unicode"><br>
<p>Chris<br>
<br>
<br>
</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote></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></div>
</blockquote></div></div>
</blockquote></div></div>
</blockquote></div></div>
</blockquote></div></div>
</blockquote></div></div>