<div dir="auto">Oops!!! Toby forgot to say what conditions he was referring to. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Bias-Free is entirely unbiased, without conditions.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I propose Saint-Lague (SL), because of its natural intuitive obviousness, & it’s near-unbias.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Bias-Free (BF) is a refinement that I’d offer as a possibility for later.</div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 06:04 Toby Pereira <<a href="mailto:tdp201b@yahoo.co.uk">tdp201b@yahoo.co.uk</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div style="font-family:Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><div></div>
<div dir="ltr">It is worth noting that the method Ossipoff declares to be "bias free" is only so under a very specific set of assumptions.</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">Toby</div><div><br></div>
</div><div id="m_-3350527419449377950ydpeed14f2fyahoo_quoted_1413802882">
<div style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:#26282a">
<div>
On Monday 15 July 2024 at 04:38:35 BST, Michael Ossipoff <<a>email9648742@gmail.com</a>> wrote:
</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><div id="m_-3350527419449377950ydpeed14f2fyiv6036480793">There was interest in a poll about PR. But I feel that first the PR methods should be tried, used, in a poll with the actual candidates & parties.<div><br></div><div>As I mentioned before, there’s no substitute for the experience of actually using the electoral methods in polls. You don’t know the methods until you use them.</div><div><br></div><div>So I propose a 3-part poll. …presidential & PR:<br></div><div><br></div><div>1. A Condorcet presidential-poll with 7 candidates + the approval-line. As others have mentioned, of course it could be counted by any rank-count that allows equal-ranking. But of course RP(wv) won here as the most collectively popular, & so its winner should be reported.</div><div><br></div><div>The approval-line of course would allow counting by methods that use explicit-approval.</div><div><br></div><div>…in addition to by the zero-cost implementation method.</div><div><br></div><div>2. A 3-seat STV poll among the same set of candidates as in the presidential-poll.</div><div><br></div><div>…as if we were electing a 3-person presidential triumvirate, or seats in some 3-member district in which those candidates are running.</div><div><br></div><div>Of course the STV rankings could be counted by any STV version, & integer STV is (in some ways) an easier count. But fractional STV is the unarbitrary STV that doesn’t require a rule or randomizing-process for the order in which ballots transfer.</div><div><br></div><div>Of course, because the STV doesn’t allow equal-rankin, then its ballots also could & would also be counted for an RCV count.</div><div><br></div><div>Of course if someone wanted to vote different rankings for STV & RCV, then they could write both & indicate which is which.</div><div><br></div><div>3. A 500-seat at-large party-PR allocation election. Of course voters vote for their favorite party, & seats are allocate to the parties in proportion to their votes.</div><div><br></div><div>Reported will be: allocations by:</div><div><br></div><div>Sainte-Lague, Bias-Free (Ossipoff-Agnew), d’Hondt, Largest-Remainder, & Huntington-Hill (“Equal-Proportions”).</div><div><br></div><div>SL & BF probably won’t differ from eachother.</div><div><br></div><div>————-</div><div><br></div><div>For the party-PR SL & BF allocation of 500 seats, the requirement for a party being seated 🪑 is about 1/7 of one percent of the vote.</div><div><br></div><div>For the 3-seat STV allocation, the requirement is being over 1/4 of the vote.</div><div><br></div><div>————-</div><div><br></div><div>SL, in actual implementations, requires .7 quotas for a party’s 1st seat. That’s to thwart, prevent & discourage splitting-strategy, which could otherwise sometimes be advantageous if the conditions were detected.</div><div><br></div><div>Because BF & SL give often the same allocation, then BF should have that same requirement.</div><div><br></div><div>That’s taken into account for the abovestated requirement for a party to be seated.</div><div><br></div><div>—————- </div><div><br></div><div>Candidates for presidential & STV elections:</div><div><br></div><div>(These listings are alphabetical.)</div><div><br></div><div>Joe Biden</div><div>RFK Jr.</div><div>Chase Oliver</div><div>Jill Stein</div><div>Donald Trump</div><div>Cornell West</div><div>Marianne Williamson </div><div>approval-line———————</div><div>———————</div><div>Parties for party-PR election:</div><div><br></div><div>American Independent </div><div>American Solidarity </div><div>Constitution </div><div>Democrat</div><div>Green</div><div>Libertarian </div><div>Peace & Freedom</div><div>Working Family </div><div>—————</div><div>Of course if this poll is going to happen, then additional nominations should be allowed. But we probably don’t need a week or two for that.</div><div>Surely any additional nominations would be made within 2 days. So let’s say that the period for optional additional nominations ends exactly 48 hours after this message posts.</div><div><br></div><div>…& that the voting period begins at that same moment.</div><div><br></div><div>We don’t need a month for the voting-period, do we? Shall we say 1 week if there’s no electioneering, & 2 weeks if there’s electioneering?</div><div><br></div><div>Anyone can change any of their ballots during the voting period.</div><div>————</div><div>Of course if this poll happens, & if no one else volunteers to take the responsibility of recording the ballots, then I’ll do so. …then of course will unblock the people I’ve blocked, for that purpose.</div><div>————-</div><div>It goes without saying that anything about the details of this poll could be objected-to, & then, if others support the objection, then discussion would be called-for. </div><div><br></div><div>It’s always best to avoid the delay caused by a procedural vote, & so hopefully there will be a consensus agreement. …or at least it will be informally-obvious which position is supported or acceptable to the most people, based on opinions expressed.</div><div><br></div><div>An RP(wv) vote would be a reluctant last-resort. Anyone could call for it if consensus were adamantly refused & no position seemed to clearly have more support or acceptance.</div><div><br></div><div>Hopefully none of that will be necessary, but it’s good to have it mentioned for contingency.</div><div>————-</div><div>As the proposer of the poll, I should vote first, immediately at the beginning of the voting-period. I don’t know if anyone will participate, but, because there was participation in the previous poll, & because people have suggested a PR poll, & because there’s no substitute for using the electoral methods…then I’ll proceed on the assumption that there’s interest & that there might be participation.</div><div><br></div><div>If the poll doesn’t happen, it won’t be because I didn’t try to start it.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div>
</div>----<br>Election-Methods mailing list - see <a rel="nofollow">https://electorama.com/em</a> for list info<br></div>
</div>
</div></div></blockquote></div></div>