Polling Ourselves
-
@MichaelOssipoff proposed:
For voting on voting systems, there should probably be 2 categories with separate balloting:
- Expected merit in use, reduction of strategy-need.
- Overall merit as a public proposal. Including #1 above, but also easy explanation, enactability, security of the count. In other words, which method would you rather propose to the public?
I mentioned that we should have nominations before each polling, and @MichaelOssipoff expressed agreement with that idea. He said we can poll ourselves "right here", which could mean this forum, although he said it in a thread started by Rob Brown, who is banned, and maybe some of you are not paying attention to that thread.
In connection with the two categories that Mr. Ossipoff proposes, I feel swayed by a point that @SaraWolk keeps stating. Here's my very broad paraphrase of that point: STAR wins on a number of comparisons that have been studied and it is obviously vastly better than systems like Hare and choose-one plurality. Also, it seems to meet State constitutions and the US constitution. Also, it is practical to tally by the precincts; it is not necessary to centralize the tally as it is in Hare and as it would be even in some fantasy systems that I might feel tempted to describe. The argument goes on to point out that spending time and attention on systems that might squeeze a tiny increment of improved democracy over STAR causes a harmful distraction from the important work of getting voting-reform into play in actual political decisions. On the other hand, however, some of us like to have fun and @Sass, with Sara Wolk listening and not showing any disagreement, pointed to the present forum as the place to do that.
-
@MichaelOssipoff, what is the "wv" variant of Ranked Pairs?
Is strict ranking required, or is equal-ranking permitted?
-
I withdraw the nominations I posted in the other thread.
For the category of:
Overall merit as a public proposal. Including #1 above, but also easy explanation, enactability, security of the count. In other words, which method would you rather propose to the public?
I nominate:
- Approval Voting (= Score{0, 1}).
- Score{2, 1, 0}. Failure to mention a candidate gives her or him the minimum score. So the tallying is by summing, not averaging.
- Score{100, 99, 90, 50, 10, 1, 0}. Failure to mention a candidate gives her the minimum score. So the tallying is by summing, not averaging.
- Score{5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0}. Failure to mention a candidate gives her or him the minimum score. So the tallying is by summing, not averaging.
- STAR Voting.
-
Maybe there should be separate categories for legislatures vs. single-winner positions.
-
@jack-waugh STAR is great, hands down. It would be especially great if it didn’t suffer from failed independence of clones, which I would imagine isn’t something that has played a significant part in comparative simulations. I think it warrants legitimate concern and discussion.
Also about Rob, I’m actually not wholly clear on why he is banned. Although I think he wasn’t all that happy with the forum and, if I recall correctly, certain discussions got a bit heated, I also think he did contribute a lot to the forum, materially and intellectually. Idk.
-
For the category of systems on abstract merit regardless of practicality of proposing them to the public, I nominate the same systems I nominated for the category of what to propose to the public.
-
@jack-waugh said in Polling Ourselves:
@MichaelOssipoff, what is the "wv" variant of Ranked Pairs?
“wv” stands for “winning-votes”.
The strength of a defeat is measured by how many people rank the defeater over the defeated.
wv brings powerful burial-deterrent…both in the form of Minimal-Defense compliance, & also in probabilistic autodeterence of burial.
wv Condorcet is invulnerable to offensive truncation strategy by a faction.
No other single-winner method is as strategy-free as wv Condorcet, e.g. RP(wv).
RP(wv) accepts equal-ranking & short rankings.
RP & Schulze are widely recognized as the best methods based on the number of criteria met.
RP is a lot more simply defined than Schulze.
Is strict ranking required, or is equal-ranking permitted?
-
Certainly. This is just a poll on single-winner methods.
A PR poll would be of interest, especially since I haven’t heard of one before. …so it’s due.
…for later, when there isn’t already a different poll in progress.
-
@michaelossipoff When I look up "Ranked-Pairs 'Winning Votes'", I'm seeing at least one assertion that there is an error in Wikipedia. Would you identify the exact definition of Ranked-pairs/Winning-votes that you want to nominate?
Do you know JavaScript? If not, what programming languages do you know?
Is Ranked-pairs/Winning-votes Frohnmayer-balanced?
Can it be tallied from the pair matrices alone from the precincts?
Do you know of a variant based on Score-type ballots (assigning a scalar to each voter-candidate pair), that would take the scalars into account under some circumstances? Would it be possible to tally such a variant based on totals from the precincts rather than gathering the ballots at a central location?
Here's an illustration for why scalar evaluation can signify more than mere ranking (even permitting equal ranking). Consider these two Score votes: Nader 1, Bush .99, Gore 0; vs. Nader 1, Bush .01, Gore 0. These seem quite different in their rating of Bush relative to the other candidates, but would reduce to the same ranking.
By the way, what voting systems are we going to be using when we vote on voting systems?
-
@jack-waugh said in Polling Ourselves:
@michaelossipoff When I look up "Ranked-
Pairs 'Winning Votes'", I'm seeing at least one assertion that there is an error in Wikipedia. Would you identify the exact definition of Ranked-pairs/Winning-votes that you want to nominate?I’ve heard of various different tiebreakers for use in small committee votes, where there could be pairwise ties that could cause a tied result.
For public elections, of course pairwise ties would be vanishingly rare even in municipal elections, & nonexistent in state & national elections.
My tiebreaker rule for public elections is to elect the tie-member who tops the most rankings.
For this vote, I’d add that if two tie-members have the same number of Nth-place rankings, then compare their (N+1)th-place rankings.
But for our poll, I’d also report the tie. …in addition to applying the abovedefined tiebreaker.
Tiebreakers are the only RP(wv) different versions I’ve heard of.
But let me tell the count-rule:
One at a time, list the pairwise-defeats, strongest ones first.
But, if the next strongest one cycles with already-listed ones (makes a cycle with them, thereby contradicting them), then skip that one.
When all defeats have been either listed or skipped, elect the candidate who isn’t defeated by any listed defeat.
Do you know JavaScript? If not, what programming languages do you know?
My computer has two programming languages user-available. Either could do the exhaustive pairwise-count with lots of voters & candidates.
But if we get so many voters that it’s necessary to automate the Condorcet count, then I’d call that a very successful poll. Let’s hope we get that many participants !!!
Is Ranked-pairs/Winning-votes Frohnmayer-balanced?
I haven’t heard of that criterion.
Can it be tallied from the pair matrices alone from the precincts?
Yes.
Do you know of a variant based on Score-type ballots (assigning a scalar to each voter-candidate pair), that would take the scalars into account under some circumstances?
No. I don’t know of a reason to do so. I chose RP(wv) for its strategic properties, for which it excels. Pairwise count ordinal methods have the best strategy properties.
Would it be possible to tally such a variant based on totals from the precincts rather than gathering the ballots at a central location?
I don’t know I’ve never considered a cardinal hybrid, or heard of a reason for one.
By the way, what voting systems are we going >to be using when we vote on voting systems?
When someone proposes a voting system to use, that person is suggesting that people post
a vote by that method’s balloting…& is offering to count such ballots.e.g. I invite people to vote an Approval set of poll-alternatives, & a ranking of them too.
(If they’d rank differently in RP(wv) & Hare, then write rankings for both. Speaking for myself, only the presence of completely unacceptable candidates in an election would give me reason to strategically vote a different ranking for Hare.)
-
I would nominate score and approval, but it seems they've already been nominated. Ranked Pairs with winning votes has already been nominated too, but I'd also want to nominate a Condorcet method that uses a cardinal ballot (which could still just be ranked pairs with winning votes).
I think cardinal ballots work better to prevent burial. If there are two main candidates, A and B and also a lesser known candidate C, people are likely to vote A>C>B or B>C>A. And this is not just because they are tactically burying. If there are polarising candidates, this is likely to be an honest vote. This is why burial-resistant Condorcet methods probably don't always work how people might hope. But with cardinal ballots, people are likely to just vote Max, 0, 0, so the opposition candidate is not buried.
For cardinal Condorcet, I'd want at least a 0-9 0r 0-10 scale. 5 would not be enough to make the distinctions people might want to make.
-
I like that better. Those Score-versions are simpler, briefer, & less removed from Approval.
I withdraw my nomination of Hare. We all oppose the “RCV” proposals. “RCV” proposals are disqualified by FairVote’s promotion-fraud. Not wanting “RCV” is something that we all agree on.
-
but I'd also want to nominate a Condorcet method that uses a cardinal ballot
So, are you going to? Time is running out.
-
@michaelossipoff said in Polling Ourselves:
I withdraw my nomination of Hare.
In that case, you might as well withdraw your nomination of Choose-one Plurality, if you nominated it as well, for just the same reasons.
-
I think Approval may well work so well as anything else in large public elections, but is too coarse for an election with fewer than 100 voters.
-
@jack-waugh said in Polling Ourselves:
@michaelossipoff said in Polling Ourselves:
I withdraw my nomination of Hare.
In that case, you might as well withdraw your nomination of Choose-one Plurality, if you nominated it as well, for just the same reasons.
I didn’t nominate that one. But, if I had, I’d withdraw it for sure.
-
@jack-waugh said in Polling Ourselves:
but I'd also want to nominate a Condorcet method that uses a cardinal ballot
So, are you going to? Time is running out.
OK, I do nominate the above. 0 to 9 scale, ranked pairs, winning votes.
-
@toby-pereira I am curious to know at what points in the tally the scores might figure in (other than via the rankings derived from them).
-
@jack-waugh said in Polling Ourselves:
@toby-pereira I am curious to know at what points in the tally the scores might figure in (other than via the rankings derived from them).
The results of the balloting s will be counted & reported at the end of the voting period.
About 2 days ago I suggested a 48-hour nomination-period. That 48 hours has elapsed, & so the nomination-period has concluded, & the voting-period has begun.
I don’t know how long a voting-period I suggested 2 days ago, but let’s say a 2-week voting-period. That’s plenty of time for anyone who intends to, to get around to it.
So shall we say that the voting-period ends at the midnight at the end of March 23rd…whenever that moment occurs in your time-zone? (By Standard-Time or Daylight-Savings-Time (Summer-Time), whichever your region is using).
That seems easier than a uniform time in GMT.
Everyone, at that time, should count the ballotings for & by all of the methods that he has proposed for the poll, & report the winners by each of those methods.
In the voting, I suggest that participants vote on each issue, posting a ballot for each issue by each proposed method.
.. or as many of those as desired. Maybe just an approval-set, a ranking, & a ballot by one’s preferred score-version (or all of the proposed ones if desired).
(A voting-system’s merit in use, because it includes easy administration & easy security-auditing, varies so closely with enactability & implementation, that there’s really not much reason to vote them separately, unless you feel that a more complicated method’s strategy-freeness for voters outweighs its less-easy administration & security-auditing.)
Of course tallying could begin as soon as any votes come in. Only the completion of the count & the reporting of the completed count need wait till the end of the voting-period.
@jack-waugh said in Polling Ourselves:
@toby-pereira I am curious to know at what points in the tally the scores might figure in (other than via the rankings derived from them).
-
@jack-waugh said in Polling Ourselves:
@toby-pereira I am curious to know at what points in the tally the scores might figure in (other than via the rankings derived from them).
Oh I see what you mean. I was wondering that too. …though it only really matters to the method’s proponent, who will count it at the conclusion of the voting-period.