<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Richard,<br>
<br>
</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;">Horrible, yes. Garbage, no, because STAR a clever way to improve
single-winner score voting.</pre>
</blockquote>
It trashes Score voting's compliance with Favorite Betrayal and
Participation to gain merely Condorcet Loser. Pure genius. If it is
an attempt to "improve" Score voting (which I have great difficulty
believing) then I don't agree that it qualifies as "clever".<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;">> If there are "failure types" in need of names, what's stopping you from
> giving them names? ...
Time and money.</pre>
</blockquote>
I wasn't talking about for the purpose of discussions in the mass
media or to get text books or dictionaries changed. I was just
talking about just for the purpose of (hopefully somewhat rigorous)
discussion here.<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;">Our goal is to rise way above plurality. Accepting limitations of
plurality is unnecessary.
Why impose any extra strategic burden on the voter?</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
I agree that that should be avoided. As you would know if you read
my previous posts here about STAR, the strategic burden it places on
the voter is vastly greater than the one imposed by plurality (aka
FPP).<br>
<br>
Both have Compromise incentive while STAR also has very strong
Push-over incentive.<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 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.
I and most voters want to be able to rank an evil candidate -- Gollum,
Voldemoron, etc. -- below all other candidates. Truncation means the
evil candidate is as acceptable as other "bad" candidates.
</pre>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</blockquote>
For IRV (aka Hare) I am strongly in favour of allowing unlimited
strict ranking from the top. I was talking about a reasonable
relatively benign way of dealing with equal-ranking in defiance of
the ballot rules. In Australia I think the whole ballot is not
counted, and binned as "informal". Normally there should be nothing
stopping you from ranking the most evil candidates strictly below
all the others.<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've written code that correctly counts so-called "overvotes." It's not
a "complex procedure":
<a
href="https://github.com/cpsolver/VoteFair-ranking-cpp/blob/master/rcipe_stv.cpp"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://github.com/cpsolver/VoteFair-ranking-cpp/blob/master/rcipe_stv.cpp</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"> When shared preference levels are
encountered,<br>
// the ballots are transfered in "whole" numbers,<br>
// not by splitting a ballot into fractional or<br>
// decimal portions. For example, during a<br>
// counting cycle, if there are two ballots that<br>
// rank candidates numbered 1 and 2 at the same<br>
// highest ranking level, one of the ballots will<br>
// transfer to candidate 1 and the other ballot<br>
// will transfer to candidate 2.<br>
//</blockquote>
<p>Assuming you can pair up all the "over-voting" ballots in this
way, this seems to be equivalent to dividing the votes up into
equal fractions that sum to 1. But what if you can't pair them all
off, or someone votes more than two candidates at the same ranking
level?<br>
<br>
I didn't express myself quite clearly enough. The "complex
procedure" I referred is the one I, not you, suggest. I didn't
bother describing it.<br>
<br>
I think that if we allow above-bottom equal-ranking in IRV or
Benham, then if among remaining candidates some ballots rank more
than one candidate equal-top then we make a provisional order of
the candidates by counting those ballots as equal fractions
summing to 1.<br>
(A=B counts as half a vote to each of A and B, A=B=C counts as a
third of a vote to each of A and B and C, and so on. Now it would
be fine for this to be the final order for deciding which
candidate to next eliminate were it not for the fact that it makes
Push-over strategising easier.) Then we count the equal top
(among remaining candidates) ballots again, this time they give a
whole vote to whichever of the ones they equal rank to the one
that was highest in the provisional order. (So an A=B ballot gives
a whole vote to whichever of A and B was higher in the provisional
order, and of course nothing to B.)<br>
<br>
This is fully in the spirit of the Single Transferable Vote but I
think you will agree that it is complex. I don't think allowing
above-bottom equal-ranking in those methods is so important, nor
do I think there would be any significant demand for that from
voters, so I don't advocate allowing it for those methods.<br>
<br>
</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;">I'm bothered by the failures in Burlington and Alaska. But those were
not just Condorcet failures. They also were IIA failures,
center-squeeze failures, etc.</pre>
</blockquote>
It is the most basic theory that all remotely reasonable methods
fail IIA, so why are we even mentioning that? And isn't
"center-squeeze" just a vague concept used in anti-IRV propaganda?
What is the precise definition of a "center-squeeze failure"?<br>
<br>
Your approach is like that of a quite bad and sloppy designer of a
car or a plane. Every time it crashes you just stick another kludge
on it designed to only guard against another crash just like the
most recent one. <br>
<br>
Chris B.<br>
<br>
<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=%3C632ea079-e977-441c-bf19-41522d2d8eee%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;">Sat
Apr 20 10:30:57 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;">On 4/19/2024 1:15 AM, Chris Benham wrote:
> ... It is not garbage like STAR.
> ...
> ... STAR is a horrible method that is very highly
> vulnerable to both Compromise and Pushover.
Horrible, yes. Garbage, no, because it's a clever way to improve
single-winner score voting. It's useful among friends when voting is
not anonymous. Or when "dishonest" exaggeration cannot be hidden.
> If there are "failure types" in need of names, what's stopping you from
> giving them names? ...
Time and money. Unlike two STAR promoters, the folks at FairVote, and
academic professors, I'm not getting paid to promote or advance
election-method reform.
>> Approval voting requires tactical voting. There's no way to avoid it.
> The strategic burden on the voter is certainly no greater than with
> FPP. ...
Our goal is to rise way above plurality. Accepting limitations of
plurality is unnecessary.
Why impose any extra strategic burden on the voter?
>> Another difference from IRV is about what FairVote calls "overvotes."
>> RCIPE counts them correctly. ...
> 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.
I and most voters want to be able to rank an evil candidate -- Gollum,
Voldemoron, etc. -- below all other candidates. Truncation means the
evil candidate is as acceptable as other "bad" candidates.
I've written code that correctly counts so-called "overvotes." It's not
a "complex procedure":
<a
href="https://github.com/cpsolver/VoteFair-ranking-cpp/blob/master/rcipe_stv.cpp"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://github.com/cpsolver/VoteFair-ranking-cpp/blob/master/rcipe_stv.cpp</a>
>> Avoiding any failures in REAL elections is what I'm "buying" by
>> advocating RCIPE instead of IRV.
> 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
> "Let's lose strict compliance with several criteria met by IRV so that
> we can ALWAYS elect the Condorcet winner"??
I'm bothered by the failures in Burlington and Alaska. But those were
not just Condorcet failures. They also were IIA failures,
center-squeeze failures, etc.
I want fewer failures in real elections. I don't care about convoluted
scenarios that would never occur in a real election.
Again, thank you for this useful discussion. I appreciate that you
really want to understand why I rank some methods better than others.
Richard Fobes
The VoteFair guy
</pre>
</body>
</html>