<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Others have noticed the single-member bias, which reflects the
monopolistic bias of the Anglo-American system.</p>
<p>I agree with what you and they say. However, a Condorcet
compliant method would not be helpful. It is not only a needless
complication but a confusing one. In this I think the many
official variants of STV are right not to complicate their system
with a Condorcet complication. Their implementers may not all be
entirely ignorant of the matter. Condorcet pairing is something of
a cult on this list but it was refuted two centuries ago by Pierre
Simon Laplace, because it ignored the relative imporance of orders
of preference. Borda method did not too satisfactorily solve the
matter but Gregory method, used in STV, superseded Borda method.<br>
</p>
<p>No knowledgable study can be satisfied with an explanation that
contradicts itself. That is why hybrid election systems are such a
bad idea. My voting method uses one system, Meek surplus transfer
for both the election and exclusion of candidates, and follows the
consequences. The basic system (not the advanced version) is
simpler, at least in principle, than conventional STV.</p>
<p>This voting innovation has already been programmed. The coder had
some difficulty because he knew the conventional methods too well.
Eventually I had to say something like: Please forget about
eliminating a candidate ("last past the post") when the surplus
votes run out. </p>
<p>The list owner belatedly released my Binomial STV programmer
links. But the list owner has also stopped my two or three line
reply to your "trying to understand BSTV" subject line, as too
large a post.</p>
<p>Regards,</p>
<p>Richard Lung.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 05/04/2024 15:03, Filip Ejlak wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAGsbvGz+4paeOENu_4iL7qnfWnPyNKX=+8Yue_dLx9g7UoU6pA@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>First thing: it's surprising how all the options that have
been mentioned are single-winner methods, despite the poll
subject not being worded in such a restrictive way. Are
multi-winner options allowed as well, or should this be a
different poll? Because it needs to be said that <u>every
legislative election needs proportional representation</u>.
I guess any single-winner method, no matter how good, will be
bad in comparison with a PR method. So if multi-winner options
were allowed in the poll, I would nominate <b>STV </b>(a
Condorcet-compliant variant would be better if there was any
polynomial one with good recognition; an optional indirect
element - like GVT, but strongly improved - would also be
nice).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>And speaking of single-winner methods, in my opinion <b>Woodall</b> and
<b>Benham</b> seem to be the best, at least among the
well-known ones. While Woodall (especially Schwartz Woodall)
is perhaps marginally better, Benham is so easy to explain
(and it's a very obvious/natural way to make IRV actually
good) that it should be seriously considered by voting reform
campaigners. So I'd like to nominate these two.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Michael Ossipoff <<a
href="mailto:email9648742@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">email9648742@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="auto">Yes, that’s true. It’s the reason why reform
is needed, & the reforms should be compared to the
worse current alternatives to show the need.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">I nominate:</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">MinMax(wv)</div>
<div dir="auto">IRV</div>
<div dir="auto">Plurality</div>
<div><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at
04:06 John T Whelan <<a
href="mailto:john.whelan@astro.rit.edu"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">john.whelan@astro.rit.edu</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div dir="auto">Given the purpose of the poll, I
think FPTP should also be included, since that's
what the real world propositions are presumably to
replace.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">John Whelan</div>
<div dir="auto"><a href="mailto:jtw24@cornell.edu"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">jtw24@cornell.edu</a></div>
<div
id="m_-4291530020185414367m_8250259586153679924ms-outlook-mobile-signature"
dir="auto">
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%">
<div
id="m_-4291530020185414367m_8250259586153679924divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font
style="font-size:11pt"
face="Calibri, sans-serif" color="#000000"><b>From:</b>
Election-Methods <<a
href="mailto:election-methods-bounces@lists.electorama.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">election-methods-bounces@lists.electorama.com</a>>
on behalf of Michael Ossipoff <<a
href="mailto:email9648742@gmail.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">email9648742@gmail.com</a>><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, April 4, 2024 1:13:28 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> EM list <<a
href="mailto:election-methods@electorama.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">election-methods@electorama.com</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [EM] Poll on voting-systems, to
inform voters in upcoming enactment-elections</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>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.
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">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.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">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.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">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.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">The voting-method for the poll: </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">It seems to me that Schulze is the
most popular ranked voting-system, among the
people at EM.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">…& it seems to me that the
last time we voted on EM’s collective favorite
voting-system, Approval won.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Those seem the top-two, in EM
popularity.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">I prefer RP(wv) to Beatpath,
mostly for its simple, intuitively natural &
obvious rule, but also for its LIIAC compliance,
& the fact that its winner usually pairbeats
Schulze’s winner.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">But I guess Schulze is more
popular due to its more efficient algorithm.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Anyway so I suggest that the poll
I propose have a Schulze balloting & count,
& an Approval balloting & count.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Voting would consist of posting a
ranking & an approval-set, in one post.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Candidate voting-systems:</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">My purpose isn’t an all-inclusive
poll among all proposed voting-systems. …just a
very few ones that are the most popular here at
EM, solely to have a little comparison to the
main voting system being publicly voted on this
year.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">So it should just be among a few
voting-systems. Additionally, no reason to make
the alternatives-lineup too time-consumingly
large by including methods unlikely to win
anyway.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">I’ll suggest a few obvious
inclusions. But, of course every poll here
should have the possibility of nomination of
whatever alternative anyone wants to nominate.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">I’ll list my nominations in this
post, & I claim that those few are all the
alternatives needed for the poll. …& anyone
can nominate anything during a 1-week
nomination-period.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">I suggest the following
voting-systems as candidates in the poll, the
alternatives among which to vote:</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"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">(Schulze & RP are often said
to be the ranked-methods most popular among
single-winner reform community, & that
seems true at EM.)</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Is there any need for more
alternatives than that?<br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">I suggest a nomination period of
exactly one week, starting at the time recorded
as the posting-time-&-date of this post.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">After which a voting-period of
exactly one month would start…at the exact time
as the end of the nomination-period.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">If there are no nominations (I
suggest that none are needed) during the
nomination-period—& if, during the
nomination-period, no one posts the words “I
second the suggestion of a poll”—then of course
there’d not be a poll. </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Again, I realize that polls are no
longer popular here, but this is a special
situation, bringing a need for voters in the
upcoming public enactment-election to have a
chance to hear how people at EM feel about
relative merit among voting-systems. So let’s
make an exception to the absence of polls here,
for voters in the next election.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
----<br>
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a
href="https://electorama.com/em" rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://electorama.com/em</a>
for list info<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</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>