<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><font size="4">Robert</font>,<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><font size="5">So my fav is straight-ahead
Condorcet with Plurality as the contingency method.</font></blockquote>
<br>
<font size="4">That method is a big open invitation for the
supporters of the Plurality (aka FPP) winner to engage in easy
Burial strategy. Say sincere is<br>
<br>
46 A<br>
44 B<br>
10 C>B<br>
<br>
B is the Condorcet winner. B>A 54-46 and B>C 44-10.<br>
<br>
What can the A supporters do about that? <br>
<br>
46 A>C (sincere is A or A>B)<br>
44 B<br>
10 C>B<br>
<br>
They have given B a pairwise defeat so now there is a cycle.
B>A 54-46, A>C 46-10, C>B 56-44.<br>
<br>
According to your preferred Condorcet//FPP method the
strategists easily steal the election. In this example that is
also true of Margins and the dinky Bottom-Two Runoff "IRV"
method you like.<br>
<br>
A much better Condorcet method is Smith//Approval (implicit)
which here gives the strategists a backfire by electing C.
Winning Votes is also better and does the same thing. So does
Smith//DAC.<br>
<br>
Condorcet//Approval (implicit) wasn't nominated in the poll but
is the same thing as Smith//Approval (implicit) when there are
no more than 3 candidates and is also much better.<br>
<br>
Among Condorcet methods, Benham and Woodall both continue to
elect B in the second example because they meet Unburiable
Mutual Dominant Third. Similar and also much better is
Condorcet//Hare.<br>
<br>
Among non Condorcet methods, I would vastly prefer plain Hare
and Double Defeat, Hare. Plain Approval would at least be
vastly better bang-for-buck.<br>
<br>
Chris B.</font><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 13/05/2024 11:32 am, robert
bristow-johnson wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:vcg3k70g967oskc24n5rak8o.1715563473106@email.lge.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div style="font-size: 10pt;">
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<ol dir="auto">
<li><font size="5">>Though speaking of: you left out some
(non-Condorcet) methods on your ballot. Do you want them
ranked last, or somewhere else? </font></li>
<li><br>
</li>
<li><font size="5">Just like in other elections I refuse to
weigh in on candidates I don't know about. And on a
ranked ballot they would likely be unranked unless Hitler
or Satan or Donald Trump was on the ballot, and then I
would have to rank these unfamiliar candidates higher.</font></li>
<li><br>
</li>
<li><font size="5">> Approval plus manual runoff, MJ,
RCIPE, and Double Defeat Hare</font></li>
<li><br>
</li>
<li><font size="5">S orry. No nothing from me. You guys know
I'm pretty simplistic. My principles:</font></li>
<li><br>
</li>
<li><font size="5">1. Equally-valued votes.
One-Person-One-Vote. Equality under the law. That means
Majority Rule. (If any minority gets to rule, that means
their votes counted more, per vote, than then individual
votes from voters in the majority that doesn't rule. That
has to be considered a "Bad Thing".)</font></li>
<li><br>
</li>
<li><font size="5">(1a. Process transparency. That means not
giving up having Precinct Summability.)</font></li>
<li><br>
</li>
<li><font size="5">2. That means if more voters mark their
ballots preferring Candidate A to Candidate B than the
number of voters marking their ballots to the c ontrary,
then Candidate B is not elected. If we can, at all, avoid
it. That means Condorcet.</font></li>
<li><br>
</li>
<li><font size="5">3. Which Condorcet-consistent method to
pick is whatever best finds its way to legislation. That
means the method, spelled out in words, needs to be
meaningful and concise and reflect principles widely
accepted by the public and legislators.</font></li>
<li><br>
</li>
<li><font size="5">So my fav is straight-ahead Condorcet with
Plurality as the contingency method. N^2 summable. Maybe
it should be Condorcet-TTR (top-two-runoff) to give the
Hare IRV advocates a fig leaf to cover their shame with.
Also N^2 summable. I dunno.</font></li>
</ol>
</div>
<div style="font-size: 10pt;">
<div id="LGEmailHeader" dir="auto">
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">------ O riginal message------</div>
<div dir="auto"><b>From: </b>Kristofer Munsterhjelm <km_elmet@t-online.de></km_elmet@t-online.de></div>
<div dir="auto"><b>Date: </b>Sun, May 12, 2024 17:42</div>
<div dir="auto"><b>To: </b>robert bristow-johnson<a
href="mailto:;election-methods@lists.electorama.com"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">;election-methods@lists.electorama.com</a>;</div>
<div dir="auto"><b>Cc: </b></div>
<div dir="auto"><b>Subject:</b>Re: [EM] POLL: New deadline: <a
href="tel:2024-05-16 05" moz-do-not-send="true">2024-05-16
05</a>:15:00 UTC</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
</div>
<pre>On <a href="tel:2024-05-12 18" moz-do-not-send="true">2024-05-12 18</a>:24, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>
>
> We need not resubmit our vote, right?
The last ballot you submitted is what counts, so you don't need to
resubmit unless you want to make a change to it.
Though speaking of: you left out some (non-Condorcet) methods on your
ballot. Do you want them ranked last, or somewhere else? The methods are
Approval plus manual runoff, MJ, RCIPE, and Double Defeat Hare.
> I haven't seen posted here more than a couple other ballots. How many
> have voted?
By my count, in reverse order of submission, there's:
Richard Fobes ("Poll, final ballot from Richard Fobes, the VoteFair guy")
You ("POLL: Approaching deadline: <a href="tel:2024-05-11 05"
moz-do-not-send="true">2024-05-11 05</a>:15:00 UTC")
Me ("Poll ballot")
fdpk69p6uq ("POLL: References (was: Re: Poll, preliminary ballots)")
Joshua Boehme ("My Preliminary Ballot for the Voting Systems Poll")
Chris Benham ("Poll ballot revision, Wednesday 24 April")
Mike Ossipoff ("Revised ballot, Wednesday, April 17th")
> I also am skeptical about the usefulness of the results (I presume a
> pairwise preference matrix and approval tallies) but will be interested
> anyway.
All the more reason for lurkers out there - or frequent posters for that
matter - to vote :-)
-km
</pre>
</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>