<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Richard,<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre
style="white-space: pre-wrap; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;">I regard HOW OFTEN failures occur to be much more important than a
checkbox that says "yes" or "no" failures of this kind NEVER occur.
</pre>
</blockquote>
Given that voting methods are mostly simple and cut-and-dried and
so plenty of 100% guarantees that criterion failures NEVER occur
are available, I find the approach "Near enough is good enough! I
am an expert. I've done a computer simulation" to be suspicious
and flaky. That attitude can lead to people switching off their
brains and swallowing BS propaganda from say STAR advocates.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre
style="white-space: pre-wrap; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;">It's easy to overlook the many failures that do not fit within NAMED
failure types. Those unnamed kinds of failures are being ignored</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
If there are "failure types" in need of names, what's stopping you
from giving them names? Several of the voting methods criteria I
uphold and promote are ones I coined myself.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre
style="white-space: pre-wrap; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;">Avoiding any failures in REAL elections is what I'm "buying" by
advocating RCIPE instead of IRV.</pre>
</blockquote>
I'm still baffled as to why, if you don't like Condorcet failures,
you don't simply advocate a Condorcet method. How is the argument
"Let's lose strict compliance with several criteria met by IRV so
that we can somewhat more often elect the Condorcet winner" better
than <br>
"Let's lose strict compliance with several criteria met by IRV so
that we can ALWAYS elect the Condorcet winner"??<br>
</p>
<p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre
style="white-space: pre-wrap; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;">Another difference from IRV is about what FairVote calls "overvotes."
RCIPE counts them correctly. That could become a huge deal in the
upcoming Portland election for mayor -- where two or more marks in the
same "choice" column will be ignored as if those marks were not on the
ballot.</pre>
</blockquote>
I think it is reasonable to treat ballots that (against the ballot
rules) equal-rank above bottom as though they truncated at that
point. Doing otherwise (as I think you advocate) without a quite
complex procedure I suggest makes the method a bit more vulnerable
to Push-over strategy.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre
style="white-space: pre-wrap; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;">I recognize that IRV's flaw is that the candidate with the fewest
transferred votes is not always the least popular -- as demonstrated in
Burlington and Alaska.</pre>
</blockquote>
IRV (properly implemented, with unrestricted strict ranking from
the top) doesn't have any "flaws". It simply fails some criteria
that some people like so that it can meet other criteria that some
people like. As Woodall put it, it has a "maximal set of
properties".<br>
It is not garbage like STAR.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre
style="white-space: pre-wrap; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;"> Approval voting requires tactical voting. There's no way to avoid it. </pre>
</blockquote>
The strategic burden on the voter is certainly no greater than
with FPP. With FPP the best strategy is to vote for your
favourite among the candidates you think have a realistic chance
of winning. With Approval you just do the same thing and then also
approve every candidate you like as much or better. An alternative
is the simple "surprise" strategy: approve any given candidate X
if you would be pleasantly surprised if X won or unpleasantly
surprised if X lost.<br>
<br>
It's a huge "bang-for-buck" improvement on FPP. But I'm not a big
fan either. <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre
style="white-space: pre-wrap; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;">* STAR ballots are a dead-end ballot type. (Always six columns, even
when there are three or four candidates. And always with the star icon,
no thanks!)</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
I find this objection to be superficial and just about style. A
lot of ok methods can be happily used with 6-slot ratings ballots,
such as say ABCDEF grading ballots. STAR is a horrible method that
is very highly vulnerable to both Compromise and Pushover.<br>
<br>
I welcome any comments you may have have about my poll favourite,
Approval Sorted Margins. Or anything else related to my most
recent ballot.<br>
<br>
Chris<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<h1
style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;"> <br>
</h1>
<b
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; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;">Richard,
the VoteFair guy</b><span
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; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial; display: inline !important; float: none;"><span> </span></span><a
href="mailto:election-methods%40lists.electorama.com?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BEM%5D%20Poll%2C%20preliminary%20ballots&In-Reply-To=%3C0d892c56-6b62-4fb3-8b67-312a3963e670%40votefair.org%3E"
title="[EM] Poll, preliminary ballots"
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; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal;">electionmethods
at votefair.org</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; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;">
<i
style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;">Thu
Apr 18 11:43:19 PDT 2024</i><span
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; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial; display: inline !important; float: none;"></span>
<p
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; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;"><br>
</p>
<hr
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; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;">
<pre
style="white-space: pre-wrap; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;">Chris B., thanks for your questions! Here are my answers:
On 4/17/2024 11:58 PM, Chris Benham wrote:
> I have trouble understanding the motivation behind "RCIPE". ...
RCIPE -- Ranked Choice Including Pairwise Elimination -- is a compromise
method.
It inherits lots of the cloneproofness of IRV because that's the backup
elimination process when an elimination round does not have a pairwise
losing candidate.
The elimination of pairwise losing candidates causes RCIPE to seldom
fail the Condorcet criterion and other "majority" criteria. It took
some head scratching to discover a case in which RCIPE fails the
Condorcet criterion. (As I recall Kristofer gets credit for finding
such a case.)
Chris B., all of your concerns seem to be about the "pass" or "fail"
categorization of methods.
I regard HOW OFTEN failures occur to be much more important than a
checkbox that says "yes" or "no" failures of this kind NEVER occur.
Visually this perspective is conveyed by measuring failure rates:
<a href="http://www.votefair.org/clone_iia_success_rates.png"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">http://www.votefair.org/clone_iia_success_rates.png</a>
About this graph: Under the simulation conditions of these measurements
the RCIPE method has zero clone failures. In real elections there can
be a few clone failures compared to IRV. Those few failures don't
concern me.
It's easy to overlook the many failures that do not fit within NAMED
failure types. Those unnamed kinds of failures are being ignored!
For example, clone failures and Local IIA failures are just two
categories within the broad category of IIA failures.
This is why I presume the Schulze method fails the various unnamed IIA
criteria in order to have zero clone failures.
Just because those increased kinds of failures don't have names doesn't
mean they should be ignored!
> I find this all very odd, and I'm not sure what you are "buying" in
comparison with plain Hare (aka IRV).
The payoff is that RCIPE would not have failed in Burlington and Alaska!
That's huge.
Avoiding any failures in REAL elections is what I'm "buying" by
advocating RCIPE instead of IRV.
Another difference from IRV is about what FairVote calls "overvotes."
RCIPE counts them correctly. That could become a huge deal in the
upcoming Portland election for mayor -- where two or more marks in the
same "choice" column will be ignored as if those marks were not on the
ballot. If the race is close, that counting error could cause the wrong
candidate to win. (This counting error is less likely to affect STV
election results for Portland city council members because winning the
second seat instead of the first seat is not a big deal.)
Clarification: I regard IRV as a steppingstone to RCIPE, so I have
supported adopting IRV here in Oregon. I dislike the misrepresentations
that come from the FairVote organization, but I'm not using that
organization's flaws as reasons to fully reject IRV. (We have to crawl
and walk before we can run.)
> Why do you think that RP(wv) and Schulze are significantly different
from each other?
Schulze is much more difficult to understand. That's important in this
poll which is supposed to be about what can be adopted for use in real,
governmental elections.
> And why do you think that MinMax(wv) is better than either? Doesn't
it fail Smith and Clone Independence?
See above about my lack of concern about the difference between "never"
and "almost never."
> Why do you think Woodall is better than Benham?
> What is the (or your) definition of "Schwartz-Woodall"?
> And what do you think is the positive point of it compared with plain
Woodall?
I don't recall what I was thinking during every detail of my ranking
process.
Broadly my thinking is:
* I'm a big fan of pairwise vote counting.
* I recognize that IRV's flaw is that the candidate with the fewest
transferred votes is not always the least popular -- as demonstrated in
Burlington and Alaska.
* I dislike Borda being any part of a method because it requires honest
voting to yield fair results. (Honestly, honesty doesn't happen in
elections.)
* Approval voting requires tactical voting. There's no way to avoid it.
I know that Approval fans disagree. Yet I assure them that when I
have to make a decision between approval and disapproval I have to do
the equivalent of mentally flipping a coin.
* I strongly dislike score/rating ballots for single-winner methods
because they are vulnerable to tactical voting. Specifically, it's
impossible to know whether a ballot is from a person with strong
religious beliefs or a person who is acting like a "drama queen" (or
whatever the modern name is for this concept). This tactical
vulnerability is important in single-winner elections.
* I do agree that score/rating ballots could be useful in multi-winner
elections where strength of preference is worthy of being considered
when there are interactions between who wins each seat. But this poll
isn't about multi-winner elections. And governmental elections need to
adopt single-winner methods first. Only later will voters and
legislators be ready to begin learning subtle concepts such as
interactions between seat winners.
* STAR ballots are a dead-end ballot type. (Always six columns, even
when there are three or four candidates. And always with the star icon,
no thanks!)
Again, thank you Chris for your questions.
Richard Fobes
The VoteFair guy</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>