<div><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 12:18 Michael Garman <<a href="mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us">michael.garman@rankthevote.us</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto">The Big Lie is used to refer to the justification for the Holocaust. </div></blockquote><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Incorrect. No one has a monopoly on big lies.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto">“Rob Richie was mean to me at a conference in 2019.” </div></blockquote><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I’ve never been to a conference with Rob Richie. :-)</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">You lie about candidates’ favorability.</div></blockquote><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I reported the results of a currently ongoing poll at CIVS (google: Condorcet Internet Voting Service) poll titled “2024 presidential election.”</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">…& no, I didn’t lie about the results.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Michael G. says he has polls showing Trump with 45% approval. 1/3 is the estimate that I’ve often heard. Without wading into a thorough search, I’ll just say that maybe Michael G’s poll is more accurate than the estimates that I’ve heard.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Michael G. says that his polls ask people to compare Trump & Biden to the “3rd-party” candidates. Fine. I’ve just never been asked such a poll-question, or encountered one in the mass media, or distributed by email, or asked on the web, to people who haven’t intentionally visited a polling website. Nor have I ever encountered a poll anywhere in which that question was asked without the Republican finishing last…losing to everyone else.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">But, hey, maybe Michael G. has discovered a better & more accurate poll that is widely publicly distributed & asked, but I’ve just never encountered it.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Anything’s possible, right?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto">to make your points about approval. You’re a liar. You’re no better than what you claim without evidence Rob Richie did at that mystical conference.</div><div dir="auto"><br clear="all"><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 Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 9:15 PM 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 dir="auto">FairVote’s intentional consistent lying about IRV’s properties was familiar & widely known & discussed in the single-winner reform community, long before Trump ran for president.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">In a recent discussion about FairVote’s big lie, Michael G. went through the most hilarious contortions to try to explain & justify the lie.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">It isn’t necessary to repeat that discussion. It’s in the archives, & most of us were here at the time.</div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 12:07 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">Unsubstantiated allegations of “fraud” and “lies”? Sounds like someone’s been hitting the “Trump-blogs” again :D</div><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 Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 9:02 PM 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 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-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)"><u></u>
<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>
<p></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 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 style="font-family:monospace">----
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a href="https://electorama.com/em" style="font-family:monospace" target="_blank">https://electorama.com/em</a> for list info
</pre>
</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>