@lime said in Simple anti-chicken modifications to score:

I promise you that nobody in the election-methods mailing list is particularly positive on IRV.

Yes, I have noticed that.

Most of the support for IRV is from the Alaskan model (Top Four & Final Five) proponents and their ally Fair Vote.

Fair Vote is promoting Proportional Racked Choice Voting in the Fair Representation Act (Rep. Donald Beyer, D-VA-8).

The Fair Representation Act (FRA) calls for Ranked Proportional Voting (SVT), FairVote claims:

"It’s straightforward for voters: Rank candidates in order of choice. Voters can rank as many candidates as they want, without fear that doing so will hurt their favorite candidate’s chances. Ranking a backup choice will never hurt a voter’s favorite candidate, so voters have no reason to vote for only one candidate."

This year's version of the FRA includes provisions for states with blanket primaries.

As with previous versions, FRA protects Voting Right Act of 1965 set aside districts. Frankly I think fair voting systems, especially proportional representation, will help minorities far more than set aside districts. Set aside districts are perceived by Republicans as a perfectly legitimate excuse to gerrymander like all hell.

The FairVote FRA pages give the impression the the chief purpose of proportional representation is to get more people of color, women, LGBTQ candidates elected.

To get Proportional Representation enacted we will need support from a good number of conservatives and Republicans. We should sell voting system reforms as color blind (they are), and fair. They will help minority representation by virtue of being color blind.

The FRA is now in committee, the speaker will decide when to let it out of committee, smart money is on never.

I admit I feel the urge to rate and rank.

Approval asks only question, but it is a very good one. Do you approve of this candidate or not?

It does get to the heart of the matter. For that reason, I think voters will be able to live with this choice.

@toby-pereira said in ABC voting and BTR-Score are the single best methods by VSE I've ever seen.:

What we really need (and which is unattainable right now for most methods) is to see what would happen in real life elections with real voters.

To test any system in real elections we need to make the claim that the “new” system is better than the current system.

That is not a high bar, as the current system is plurality voting. IRV is also a competitor.

We may not have a firm handle on how good ABC or BTR-Score are, but we can say they are better than the choices above.

I am writing a page about the Top Four Primary model for VotersTakeCharge.us (not yet up). Voters Take Charge will advocate for proportional representation and replacing plurality voting. My problem is that I am a voting system salesperson, not an election scientist. I need help.

The Alaskan top four nonpartisan “primary” model is supported by has several organizations, including Unite America, The Institute for Political Innovation, Veterans for All Voters, Independent Voter Project, Open Primaries, and Fair Vote.

They have money, enough for ballot initiatives. This is the main reason why this topic is worthy of consideration in this forum.
There are several questions to be considered. Should I separate this into two topics as follows?

Topic 1
Alaskan Top Four Model Improvements:
What voting systems should be used for each round?
Is it a useful model? (setting aside the partisan - nonpartisan question)

Topic 2
Alaskan Top Four Model - Partisan vs nonpartisan:
iEBs - independent Egotistical Billionaires?
State run primaries?

As you likely recall, Top Four is a two-round system. Anyone can get on the Round One ballot by gathering signatures. Each voter can choose one candidate in round one, the top four meet in a Ranked Choice Vote final.

I am reluctant to call round one a primary, as parties cannot choose their candidates in round one. As a nonpartisan election, there is no mention of party nominations on the ballots in either round. Instead, each candidate’s party affiliation is listed. Thus, the round one ballot for the 2022 Alaskan race for the US Senate listed eight Republicans, three Democrats, three nonpartisans, two undeclared and one Alaskan Independent. Could this be a clone problem?

The two round concept has appeal. Everyone competes in the first round, giving third parties and unaffiliated candidates an opportunity to make their cases. Dedicated voters would narrow the general election field to four (or five) candidates.

Nonpartisan ballots harm third-parties by denying much needed visibility at a critical point. Major parties must communicate who their nominee is and persuade supporters to ignore the other members of their party who are in the race.

Who benefits? Unaffiliated candidates, chiefly ones with money. Are they trying to set up a stealth party of iEBs (independent Egotistical Billionaires)?

My key questions are what would be the best voting systems for rounds one and two? Would clones cause problems? Also interested in members’ opinions on the two round, top four (or five) concept.

More opportunities to express opinions! Should there be state-run primaries held before round one? Should we offer each party four options: open, semi-open, closed and do it yourself? Or should we demand proportional representation before we are so nice to the parties? Partisan vs nonpartisan in general?

Please feel free to express your righteous indignation. Thank you, GregW

@toby-pereira

I admit I am desperately seeking voting systems that are appealing and accurate. So I do appreciate the help I have received on this forum. When I first decided to advocate for better voting systems I had no idea how difficult the choices would be.

I think that voters will prefer Score ballots over Approval ballots, but I could be wrong. Has anyone done any polls on this?

Is there any reason to think SPAV would be more or less proportional than SPAV + KP?

@ex-dente-leonem

Ex dente leonem gave these instructions for ABE voting:

Rate each candidate from A to F, A being best and F being worst.

Candidates receive 1 point for each A, B, or C rating and 0 points for each D, E, or F rating.

Equal ratings are allowed. Unrated candidates are automatically rated F.

An explanation for voters:

*The points seed a tournament. The first game matches the candidates with the two lowest point totals.

In each game, the A, B, C, D, E, F ratings determine which candidate is preferred by each voter. If you gave candidate Mike a D, and candidate Tim a B, your vote would go to Tim.

The winner would face the candidate with the next lowest number of points. This is repeated until the survivor meets the candidate with the highest number of points in the final game to determine the winner.

A spoiler effect is nearly impossible with ABC voting.*

ABC is one notch more complex than BTR-Score, which is quite simple as Condorcet methods go.

Is “nearly impossible” a fair statement?

What other benefits should we highlight for the public?

Were you using Jonathan Quinn’s VSE?

Thanks for the great thread.

The current instructions for a 0 -5 Score Ballot:

Score the best candidate 5.
Score the worst candidate 0.
Rate other candidates in comparison.
Ties are allowed. Blank scores are equal to 0.

For compliance with state constitutions that require a winning candidate to receive the “the highest”, “the greatest” or “the largest” number of votes, or “a plurality of votes” I propose the following explicit instructions:

Cast 5 votes for the best candidate.
Cast 0 votes the worst candidate.
Cast votes for the other candidates in comparison.
Ties are allowed. If you do not cast votes for a candidate, that candidate does not receive votes.

Unfortunately, this will not work with STAR, BTR-Score, or Smith-Score. High dollar lawyers are our only hope for these systems.

The chief concern with Score voting is one-sided strategy.

To make strategy a little less one-sided, substitute “the best” with “your preferred” and “the worst” with “your least preferred”:

Cast 5 votes for your preferred candidate.
Cast 0 votes your least preferred candidate.
Cast votes for the other candidates in comparison.
Ties are allowed. If you do not cast votes for a candidate, that candidate does not receive votes.

Yes, this moves us down the slippery slope towards Approval, but that’s ok.

I agree that Score is a great system to promote, simple and expressive.

As a voter, I think {100, 99, 90, 50, 10, 1, 0} would be useful.

However, I think most people would be more comfortable with the familiar {5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0} range.

What would be a concise explanation in favor of {100, 99, 90, 50, 10, 1, 0} ?

@k98kurz said in ABC voting and BTR-Score are the single best methods by VSE I've ever seen.:

Developing a genetic algorithm to evolve a strategy that breaks a system would be an interesting side project. When I get the spare time and energy, I'll see if I can cook one up and set up a computer to just chug away at it until I have some results.

A great idea! To determine the best voting systems, we need to find the weaknesses of each voting system. Better testing methods are key. A tool like you propose would be invaluable.

@cfrank

Another possibility:

Cast 5 votes for your favorite candidate.
Cast 0 votes the worst candidate.
Cast votes for the other candidates in comparison.
Ties are allowed. If you do not cast votes for a candidate, that candidate does not receive votes.

@cfrank

Link fixed, I got a little sloppy with the paste.

Score Voting Methods - Score, STAR, and BTR-Score

@wolftune

BTR-Score is easier to explain than IRV. No need to talk about transferring votes.

Rated methods are generally simple, here is may take on a few:
Score Voting Methods – Score, STAR, and BTR-Score

@casimir said in BTR-score:

That's good. You may even remove the "Hiveism substack" in the text and just keep the foot note if this makes it more readable.

Since every voter can vote for only one candidate, votes are a limited resource that candidates compete over. This turns campaigning into a zero-sum game. Candidates with similar political values must compete against each other. They split the votes, which benefits their mutual opponent.

Thank you, your quote helped the article, a plurality votes as a limited resource does explain some of the current rancor.

People diss voting systems that have not yet been used in public elections, even though the two systems with the most current use, plurality and IRV, have been found wanting.

@casimir said in BTR-score:

I've argued here that it might be more useful to promote a spectrum of compatible methods (approval, score, STAR and BTR-score in this case).

I have quoted your Hiveism Substack on VotersTakeCharge.us.

"Since every voter can vote for only one candidate, votes are a limited resource that candidates compete over. This turns campaigning into a zero-sum game. Candidates with similar political values must compete against each other. They split the votes, which benefits their mutual opponent."

The is a great explanation of the weakness of plurality voting.

If the is a problem, or if you would like me to change how I credit this please let me know.

Thanks, GregW

@cfrank said in ABC voting and BTR-Score are the single best methods by VSE I've ever seen.:

it’s really great you’re working on these kinds of reinforcement learning methods in this field,

Actually I do not have the mathematical expertise. If my new nonprofit, Voters Takes Charge, (under construction at voterstakecharge.us password no longer needed) receives generous support we may be able to commission such work.

@gregw

The login is no longer required!

@k98kurz said in ABC voting and BTR-Score are the single best methods by VSE I've ever seen.:

Developing a genetic algorithm to evolve a strategy that breaks a system would be an interesting side project. When I get the spare time and energy, I'll see if I can cook one up and set up a computer to just chug away at it until I have some results.

A great idea! To determine the best voting systems, we need to find the weaknesses of each voting system. Better testing methods are key. A tool like you propose would be invaluable.

@lime

Perhaps testing voting systems is analogous to testing digital security, let people try to hack a new voting system. Computer simulations would be one method of hacking, creative humans, another.

Yes, real political elections are the best tests, but we have to get there from here.

@lime said in ABC voting and BTR-Score are the single best methods by VSE I've ever seen.:

I'd feel very uncomfortable with any method where the game-theoretically optimal strategy leads to bad results, even if experiments showed the method doing well. I'd be worried voters just haven't figured out the correct strategy yet, and as soon as someone explains it to them all hell will break loose.

Are you uncomfortable with BTR-Score? As a Condorcet method, it should be safer than most new systems. It would elect the “beats all” winner if there is one. Otherwise, it would elect someone from the Smith set.

As with any cardinal system, one side could decide to always bullet vote giving their favorite the highest rating and everybody else 0. The punishment would be harm to their second choices.

Would this be more, or less of a problem with BTR-Score?

Do you see another possible weakness? If so, how bad?

BTW VotersTakeCharge.us is under construction.
For a sneak peek, use the following login:
user: flywheel
Pass: squalid-fiction

VotersTakeCharge.us is under construction.
You can have a sneak peek with this login.

User: flywheel
Pass: squalid-fiction

Articles have been posted. We need feedback, constructive and destructive criticisms welcome! Feedback forms are posted for each article.

Highlights include the establishment of the Second Law of Economics and an article about Top Four blanket primaries as proposed in Colorado ballot initiative 310.