<div dir="auto">Chris is right: Primarily it of course isn’t an honesty issue. No matter how it’s presented, a method with IRV’s strategy problem should never be proposed for public political elections.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">…& that’s only the strategy problem, quite aside from its potential for count-fraud, due to the elaborate count that it shares with other ranked methods. …a problem made considerably worse if the count is automated, as it would be here.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">There’s no reason to propose something that bad when there are better methods.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">But I was willing to accept that serious favorite-burial need, & count-fraud vulnerability, for no other reason than a hope that maybe most voters wouldn’t favorite-bury (as I said in my previous reply).</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">But that depends on the voters knowing, accepting & liking what they’re buying. Fraudulent sale? All bets are off.</div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 16:14 Chris Benham <<a href="mailto:cbenhamau@yahoo.com.au">cbenhamau@yahoo.com.au</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<div>
<p>
</p><blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Michael—you're right that it means
favorite-burial (cutting the "head" off a ballot). <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055400194481/type/journal_article" target="_blank">The
term is quite old, though (older than "favorite betrayal" or
"favorite burial" I believe)</a>.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I don't like either term. For me, "burial" refers to something a
voter does to a candidate in the hope that will cause that
candidate to lose to a candidate the voter prefers, and not just
to any insincere down-ranking. So "favorite-burial" is an
oxymoron that Mike O. likes to use.<br>
<br>
"Favorite Betrayal" meaning to insincerely down-rank one's
favourite, is ok, but that could either be Compromise strategy
(insincerely up-ranking X to decrease the chance that X will lose
to a candidate you like less) or Push-over (insincerely up-ranking
X to increase the chance that X will lose to say F that you like
better, instead of F losing to some Y that you like less).<br>
<br>
An attempt was made to standardise the terminology here quite a
while ago:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://condorcet.org/emr/defn.shtml" target="_blank">http://condorcet.org/emr/defn.shtml</a><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><b style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:serif;font-size:medium;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial">burying</b><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:serif;font-size:medium;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;display:inline!important;float:none"></span><br style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:serif;font-size:medium;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial">
<span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:serif;font-size:medium;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;display:inline!important;float:none">Insincerely
ranking an alternative lower in the hope of defeating it.</span></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><b style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:serif;font-size:medium;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial">compromising</b><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:serif;font-size:medium;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;display:inline!important;float:none"></span><br style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:serif;font-size:medium;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial">
<span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:serif;font-size:medium;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;display:inline!important;float:none">Insincerely
ranking an alternative higher in the hope of getting it
elected.</span></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><b style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:serif;font-size:medium;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial">push-over</b><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:serif;font-size:medium;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;display:inline!important;float:none"></span><br style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:serif;font-size:medium;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial">
<span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:serif;font-size:medium;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;display:inline!important;float:none">The
strategy of ranking a weak alternative higher than one's
preferred alternative, which may be useful in a method that
violates<span> </span></span><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090613041320/http://condorcet.org/emr/defn.shtml#monotonicity" style="font-family:serif;font-size:medium;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)" target="_blank">monotonicity</a></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p style="font-family:serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:medium;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><b>monotonicity</b><br>
The property of a method where an alternative can never be
made to succeed by being ranked lower on some ballots. Doing
this is using the "<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090613041320/http://condorcet.org/emr/defn.shtml#push-over" target="_blank">push-over</a>"
strategy.</p>
<p style="font-family:serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:medium;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
The genius of STAR Voting is that it apparently technically
doesn't "violate monotonicity", but it is vastly more vulnerable
to Push-over than IRV which does, as I've explained previously.<br>
<br>
I find the question of whether there have been mistakes or
exaggerations or false claims made by the IRV promoters to be
completely irrelevant to, and separate question from, whether its
adoption in the US should be supported.<br>
<br>
Of more concern to me are the details of the ballot rules and
restrictions. I think it is more democratic for it to be
relatively easy to get on the ballot so as to allow the voters a
wider choice of candidates. I understand that typically voters are
limited to 7 different "ranking levels". Well say there are 9
candidates and my two least-preferred candidates are the two
front-runners and I have a preference between them. If I vote
sincerely my vote is just as wasted as if I had voted sincerely in
FPP.<br>
<br>
IRV then doesn't have Clone Independence. One of the main points
of ranked-ballot versus FPP is to reduce the involuntarily wasted
vote as much as possible. <br>
<br>
If such restrictive ballot rules are unavoidable, then I lose my
enthusiasm for IRV or Benham in favour of something with a
truncation incentive (and that is happy with equal-ranking if that
isn't a problem for the ballot rules) such as Smith//Approval
(implicit).<br>
<br>
Properly implemented Hare's Compromise incentive is practically
nothing by comparison with that of FPP, and no-one in Australia
notices it. I estimate it is also quite a bit weaker than that of
STAR. Pushover strategy in Hare is relatively difficult and risky
in Hare and as far as I know it's never been tried in Australia.
Whereas STAR is a "festival of Push-over" farce/nightmare.<br>
<br>
And while (like STAR) it fails Condorcet, it has a solid set of
"representativeness" criterion compliances that together can be
thought of as weakened Condorcet and are worth quite a lot.<br>
<br>
They are Dominant Coalition (a better stronger version of Mutual
Majority that so of course implies it) and Dominant Mutual Third
and Condorcet Loser. STAR only meets the last of those, the
weakest.<br>
<br>
Chris B.<br>
<br>
<br>
<p></p>
<div>On 29/04/2024 5:08 am, Closed Limelike
Curves wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Michael—you're right that it means favorite-burial
(cutting the "head" off a ballot). <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055400194481/type/journal_article" target="_blank">The term is quite old, though (older
than "favorite betrayal" or "favorite burial" I believe)</a>.</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at
12:02 PM Michael Ossipoff <<a href="mailto:email9648742@gmail.com" target="_blank">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">Of course I’m just guessing, but my guess is
that “decapitation” is Closed’s new name for
favorite-burial.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Closed sometimes in invents new names without
define them. </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">IRV indeed shares Plurality’s need for
favorite-burial defensive-strategy. I don’t like that, &
wouldn’t propose IRV. There are a number of places where IRV
is (the only electoral reform) up for enactment this year,
In spite of that very unlikeable strategy-need, I wanted to
help campaign for its enactment, in the hope that the voters
who’ve enacted it didn’t do so because they intend to bury
their favorite, & so so won’t do so.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">But, because IRV is being fraudulently sold to
them, with intentional lies, we can’t count on how people
will vote when they find out about what they’ve enacted…when
they find out about the lie.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Therefore, regrettably, we shouldn’t support
“RCV”.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at
11:15 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:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>Limelike,<br>
<br>
Can you please define and explain the "decapitation"
strategy? I haven't heard of it.<br>
<br>
And can you elaborate a bit on this? :<br>
<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>IRV is a good example of this. It's <i>usually</i>
not susceptible to strategy (in the IAC model),
but I think of it as one of the most
strategy-afflicted methods on this list. It's
vulnerable to some particularly-egregious
strategies (decapitation), ones that are complex
or difficult to explain (pushover), and many
strategies [that?] don't have a simple defensive
counterstrategy available (like truncation).</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Chris B.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>
<div>On 29/04/2024 2:31 am, Closed Limelike Curves
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">Hi Kris, thanks for the results!
They're definitely interesting.</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">That said, I'm not sure how useful
a metric raw probabilities provide; I don't
think they provide a very strong measure of how
<i>severely</i> each system is affected by
strategy. Missing are:
<div>1. How much do voters have to distort
their ballots? Is it just truncation,
compression (as with tied-at-the-top), or full
decapitation?<br>
</div>
<div>2. How hard is it to think of the strategy?
Counterintuitive strategies (e.g. randomized
strategies or pushover) require large,
organized parties to educate their supporters
about how to pull it off. This could be good
or bad depending on if you like
institutionalized parties. Good: sometimes
people can't pull it off. Bad: this creates an
incentive for strong parties and partisanship.
See the Alaska 2022 Senate race, where
Democrats pulled off a favorite-betrayal in
support of Murkowski to avoid a
center-squeeze.</div>
<div>3. Is a counterstrategy available?</div>
<div>4. How feasible is the strategy (does it
involve many or few voters)?</div>
<div>5. How bad would the effects of the
strategy be? Borda is bad not just because
it's often susceptible to strategy, but
because it gives turkeys a solid chance of
winning.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>IRV is a good example of this. It's <i>usually</i>
not susceptible to strategy (in the IAC
model), but I think of it as one of the most
strategy-afflicted methods on this list. It's
vulnerable to some particularly-egregious
strategies (decapitation), ones that are
complex or difficult to explain (pushover),
and many strategies don't have a simple
defensive counterstrategy available (like
truncation).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>A low-probability but occasionally
high-impact strategy might be the worst of
both worlds; voters get lulled into a false
sense of security by a few elections where
strategy doesn't matter, then suddenly find a
candidate they dislike elected because they
failed to execute the appropriate defensive
strategy.</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<pre>----
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a href="https://electorama.com/em" target="_blank">https://electorama.com/em</a> for list info
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote></div></div>