administrators

@toby-pereira apparently so, because they left. But honestly in terms of the purpose of a forum, that doesn’t really subtract from anything.

Anyway, this original post was made well before RFK Jr.’s (imo reluctant) alignment with Trump. At least one of RFK Jr.’s predictions was correct, namely that Biden and/or Harris would not beat Trump. His “no spoiler” pledge would have given beating Trump the greatest possible chance, but Democrats refused to cooperate because they are power hungry, greedy, and benefit too much from the duopoly to concede to a third party candidate, even at the cost of Trump winning.

IMO, that’s primarily why RFK Jr. angled against them, in game theory terms it was as a punishment. It was a textbook failed prisoner’s dilemma, and they got a taste of their own medicine in a way that hurt everybody and could have been avoided. But I digress.

@A Former User said in Kennedy Jr’s Candidacy as a Route to Voting Reform:

This thread made me lose interest in this forum. RFK Jr. is a monster.

Just one person posting something you disagree with made you lose interest in the whole forum?

@Isocratia I mean, maybe. But if you bail from a conversation just because people are discussing ideas that don’t neatly align with your views, I think that kind of runs counter to productive discussion. Engagement is the whole point of a forum. Why not take the opportunity to make your case? On that point, I don’t think I was being dogmatic, I was just putting a moderate, measured perspective out here. In particular, that if a candidate has comparable support to what Nader did, he should also be on the debate stage.

As for Kennedy, I’m not sure if you followed his campaign directly, but from what I saw, his platform had some surprisingly rational moments. Whatever mistaken views he holds about healthcare, his core message was about dismantling corporate capture of government—which, let’s be honest, is exactly the route that’s brought us to the brink of fascism today. Frankly, he seemed more committed to stopping Trump than the Democrats did.

Like him or not, he was a third-party candidate who genuinely threatened to shake up the duopoly—something we haven’t really seen since Nader. And given how deeply dysfunctional the two-party system has become, that’s not nothing. The political landscape is a real-time disaster, and reform doesn’t just happen on its own. While it wasn’t his main agenda, one thing I appreciated about his run is that he was literally the only candidate to talk about ranked-choice voting and other technical fixes.

That said, I completely checked out when he aligned himself with Trump. At that point, his platform basically collapsed. His current sellout stance disillusioned a lot of his supporters—and honestly, he should’ve just bowed out once it was clear he couldn’t win.

If you see it differently, I’d be interested to hear why. That’s why I brought this topic up in the first place.

@toby-pereira yes definitely. I started trying to actually prove participation last evening, and it got much hairier than I would have liked... lots of branching edge-case conditions. I think an actual proof (or counterexample) of participation for this system would require some nice insights, and/or a larger scale planning and brute-force organized accounting of every relevant case.

For example, I’m quite certain the new participant V can never change the top sorted candidate to somebody they prefer less. So it would have to be an upset via the B2R survivor, who would have to become the new winner, and be preferred less than the old winner by V. But that situation gets complicated in terms of the sorting and the rank tie-breaking authority… Maybe some day!

There is an online obituary if you want to read it here.

@cfrank While I'm not an expert in how to make methods pass particular criteria, participation seems to be a very hard one to get. Most of the methods that pass it seem to be simple adding up ones (e.g. FPTP, Borda, approval, score), although Descending Solid Coalitions and Descending Acquiescing Coalitions are slightly weird methods that do pass it apparently.

@toby-pereira yes it’s a bit particular, that’s the part that’s designed to preserve participation. The +1 advantage plus tie break conferred to the adversary is essentially to prevent any single vote from changing the outcome of the participation criterion-satisfying method. It still needs proof or more auditing and adjustment. But it was motivated empirically by finding examples of participation failure without introducing the advantage and some other aspects.

I think voters could have an anonymous ID given to them upon voting, it would have to be done with encryption. You’re right that in this case we would have to preclude latecomers, which I think would be fine. I think it could be done securely without an extra trip. This whole situation really makes “recounts” potential difficult though.

Having the “sincere” rank be attached to the original ballot might also be an option, but voters would somehow need to know that the second ballot would not be used in the first election, for instance. The only way they can know for sure is if they don’t provide it until after the first election winners are revealed. That could also be done with encryption.

In terms of preserving participation, the final runoff may not even be necessary. I’m trying to combine two things that can be looked at separately.

Also thanks for reading and your thoughts! I’m starting to wonder about how to guarantee the Condorcet loser criterion while still preserving participation. As of now though I think the method is essentially approval but with significantly stronger Condorcet-like guarantees.

EDIT: I just learned that there is an impossibility theorem about participation, independence of clones, and Condorcet loser. My guess is that the context and proof are similar to Arrow’s theorem, but the details I don’t know.

@cfrank said in Fixing Participation Failure in “Approval vs B2R”:

(6) Run a secondary, independent head-to-head election between the B2R winner and their adversary, with the following caveats:
--> Voters are not tied down in any way to their original preference between the B2R winner and the adversary, and can freely vote for either in the independent head-to-head. Also, voters who did not participate in the first round are fully allowed to participate in the final round. By default, voters' original ballots will be used to determine the preference, but voters may opt in to swap their rating either 0 or 1 times, whichever amount is necessary to indicate an advantage that they wish to disclose.
--> However, based on these swaps, we can count the net number of swaps that are advantageous to the adversary over the B2R winner compared with the original ballots. If this number is positive, the election proceeds as you would expect, with ties broken by the sort order. However, if the number is not positive, if the original head-to-head was in favor of the B2R survivor, and if a material difference would be incurred, then the adversary will be conferred an automatic +1 head-to-head advantage, and will also automatically win ties.

I find this part a bit hard to understand.

Also, if it's an independent head-to-head, do you mean a separate trip to the polling station, or just a separate part of the ballot paper? If it's a separate trip, then it would be impossible to manage the swaps and each voter's default position without losing anonymity.