Best posts made by GregW

@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.

@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 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

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?

@toby-pereira

I greatly appreciate your work!

Is this correct?
"COWPEA is the only method that is fair and consistent, but it may be the most difficult to sell to the public."

Thank you, GregW

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

@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.

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} ?

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.

@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.

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.

@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.

@jack-waugh said in Toward A Second Vote On Voting Systems:

We who think about voting systems, including thinkers who have been frequenting other fora instead of this one, all of us together, need to pick a consensus winner among single-winner voting systems to push above all others when we communicate to the public about political elections. Otherwise, the officials who could help advance our cause, the newspaper reporters who even give any notice to it, and the builders of voting machinery are likely to continue to believe we have no consensus and they are likely to continue to wait for one

Those of use who think about voting systems have two things in common with reporters and voting machine manufactures; elected officeholders are our distributors and voters are our end users.

If we can persuade elected officeholders, or voters via ballot initiative, on the merits of a particular voting system; voting machine manufacturers will have a strong incentive to go along.

The support of reporters and/or voting manufacturers would help when lobbying elected officeholders and persuading voters.

Also, advocates of election reform, like myself, might be inclined to promote a voting system recommended by this election and use the recommendation as evidence of value of that voting system.

@cfrank said in State constitutions that require “a plurality of the votes” or the “highest,” “largest,” or “greatest” number of votes.:

If we’re going to succeed in making any technical arguments then we will have to work with clear definitions and can’t afford to be loose with interpretations.

Agreed! The "highest", "largest", or "greatest" criteria could be interpreted in differently in each state. State supreme courts tend to enforce the status quo.

This will sound weird, but could enacting legislation call for score voting, but have a provision to use approval voting if score is found unconstitutional?

@gregw

The login is no longer required!