Tweet by Star Voting regarding Multi Winner Voting
-
@spelunker I think it's fine to post and discuss this. I presume that STAR-PR is the same as Allocated Score. I have been in some of the Zoom discussions they've had about this (though not for ages) and I'm in the Loomio group (that I don't think has been used for a while), so I should probably have remembered which method they settled on. I don't think it was actually @Keith-Edmonds's first choice anyway. I think he preferred Sequentially Spent Score. Though correct me if I'm wrong.
I have to admit, neither of these methods have particularly struck me anyway.
-
@spelunker I don't have a strong opinion on much with multi-winner. since it's never really been my interest as I think it's unrealistic in most US elections without major structural changes to government.
Regardless, I don't like the "throws away ballot data" complaint. Every voting system throws away ballot data. That's actually the whole point, take megabytes of data about preferences and convert it to a single winner. Lossy compression to the extreme.
Some methods, such as Condorcet ones, very explicitly throw away a certain kind of data. By considering only order and not "absolute position", they remove (most) strategic incentives. But it is throwing away data nonetheless. It's on purpose.
Maybe they could say "throws away ballot data prematurely" and I wouldn't complain.
-
I have too agree with both on you on your points. It seems a bit like they were forced to create a multi winner voting method for 5-star ballots, instead of using one of the established ones.
-
@spelunker I don't remember saying that but I does seem like something I would say. Both of the criticism of the systems are accurate. If the simplification of the criticism does not sit right with you because it is too simplistic then why not ask for details if you do not have them? The nature of public communication is that of condensing concepts.
@Toby-Pereira is right that I prefer Sequentially Spent Score to Allocated Score but I do like it. I also like MES and Single distributed vote. There are lots of good systems out there and there are trade-offs between them. In the end it comes down to your position on a few axioms. However, MMP and STV are not good systems and I do not see how they could be on anybody's list of top tier systems independent of axiom choice.
Also, a side note, you are inserting a pretty bold assumption about the motivation for the invention of these systems. None of these system were invented by people who were involved with STAR voting at the time of their invention as far as I know. You are thinking there is causation from STAR voting to the multiwinner system when you should be looking for a common cause. The common cause is that cardinal systems contain the maximal amount of ballot data. The choice of 5 is somewhat arbitrary but seems a reasonable choice. I do not think anybody involved in STAR voting or other Cardinal systems has a super strong opinion on the granularity.
-
@keith-edmonds Maybe my criticism was a bit too harsh. I however find it a bit dangerous for an organization like them, to produce statements like this, especially as most people do not seem to agree on the statement that "MMP and STV are not good systems". This could just lead to more division in an already quite divided field.
I have no real wish to debate you on this topic, I am however curious to which "few axioms" your decision comes down to?
Also as a disclaimer, I think that I would prefer MMP, or any other apportionment method, over any multidistrict system: It is easy to vote and explain, there is a ground truth, you can enable local representation, you have equal power between voters, and you can -- up to considerations in the minimal percentage factor-- vote for the party you like, without much strategic voting.
-
@spelunker I think it is fine for Equal Vote to have a high bar for what they endorse and do not see how you could view this as "dangerous".
Most of the axioms have to do with the definition of PR. The ones I care about have to do with how you interpret the different scores on a ballot. This gives the distinction between MES and SSS. @Andy-Dienes went super far down the rabbit hole on this if you want to ask him a follow up.
One axiom relevant to this conversation is if a vote for a person who is a member of a party can be assumed to be endorsement of that party. MMP is built off the axiom that they are the same. This is why I think MMP is a bad system. I do not think partisan voting is good at all and especially not with a choose one ballot. I view Party List as the worst possible system not Single Member Plurality.
-
@keith-edmonds said in Tweet by Star Voting regarding Multi Winner Voting:
Most of the axioms have to do with the definition of PR. The ones I care about have to do with how you interpret the different scores on a ballot. This gives the distinction between MES and SSS. @Andy-Dienes went super far down the rabbit hole on this if you want to ask him a follow up.
I would be interested, do you have a forum pointer?
One axiom relevant to this conversation is if a vote for a person who is a member of a party can be assumed to be endorsement of that party. MMP is built off the axiom that they are the same. This is why I think MMP is a bad system. I do not think partisan voting is good at all and especially not with a choose one ballot. I view Party List as the worst possible system not Single Member Plurality.
I see, I don't think we will be able to agree, if that is your opinion.
-
Full disclosure, I tweeted that from the STAR Voting twitter account in reply to a direct question about the different methods. Twitter has a tight character limit and I find value in keeping the core of a response to one tweet, so I had to be brief.
Keith said something very similar to that quote in an interview I did with him:
Youtube Video – [00:56..]Otherwise, I think Keith spelled out the core reasonings behind Equal Vote's stance.
-
@spelunker said in Tweet by Star Voting regarding Multi Winner Voting:
I would be interested, do you have a forum pointer?
There have been lots of discussions about this stuff. There was a bit of a revival when MES was invented a few years back. I am sure some of them were had here. Ill Leave it to @Andy-Dienes to go into the details of explaining it. If you would like to get it from the source here are a few papers to get you started.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2007.01795.pdf
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1911.11747.pdf
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.01527.pdf@spelunker said in Tweet by Star Voting regarding Multi Winner Voting:
I see, I don't think we will be able to agree, if that is your opinion.
We could get to agree if I had enough time to talk about the game theoretic effects of explicitly partisan system and how they undermine democracy. I do not have time for that so I will just leave you with a thought experiment. Would you rather have your favourite system where your enemy gets to choose who is on the ballot or your least favourite system where anybody can appear on the ballot? What effect does the choice of system have on who is on the ballot?
-
Hi everyone. STAR Voting and Equal Vote Executive Director here.
I agree that the post is unnecessarily negative. We have best practices for posting from the official account and being tactful and objective is part of that, so my apologies that this post came off as inflammatory and somewhat subjective.
There are a few of us that post from the official STAR Twitter and Sass is one of them, but our team is diverse and our leadership have a variety of views on this and other topics. The official accounts should reflect the breadth of our views and not our personal perspectives. Sass' views above and Keith's as well are their personal perspectives, which sometimes differ somewhat from other board and committee leaders'. My apologies.
STAR Voting Action as an org doesn't have an official position on MMP or STV beyond that we hope to offer a 5 star system that delivers on the goals of each while addressing valid criticisms. STAR Voting can be combined with MMP if desired.
Equal Vote as an org doesn't endorse any systems that don't eliminate vote-splitting and/or that waste ballot data, so MMP and STV don't pass our minimum bar but 'terrible' is a strong word. There are clearly pros and cons.
-
@sarawolk said in Tweet by Star Voting regarding Multi Winner Voting:
Equal Vote as an org doesn't endorse any systems that don't eliminate vote-splitting and/or that waste ballot data, so MMP and STV don't pass our minimum bar but 'terrible' is a strong word. There are clearly pros and cons.
Hi Sara,
Point of clarification. My quote labels Party List and Single Member Plurality as terrible not MMP. I don't think that is too strong of a work for them (speak as me not as a director of equal vote. MMP is mediocre.
