I am in touch with a group of people who think they are working on a platform for a national-level political party (I am a full voting member). They have heard of STAR and are acquainted with one or two people whose opinions they respect who favor STAR. I think I have convinced them that the platform should not call for a single voting system for all uses, on the grounds that circumstances differ and that State parties should decide based on the circumstances. The draft provisions being passed around in the group tend to mention more than one voting system. But, I want to convince them not to include any favorable mention of RCV/IRV whatsoever. What is the most convincing argument I can take to them that the risk of a spoiler effect is too high with IRV?

Thanks for pointing out that omission. The info has been available via published minutes of the forum council, but it's better to have a summary in the present category (which is whither the "About" button on the home page leads), so I posted it.

Here is a ranking of forms of expression by expressivity:

• Least expressive: strict ranking.
• Middlingly expressive: ranking allowing equal-ranking.
• Most expressive: ratio scale.

Every Tuesday, at 20:00 New York time (16:00 UTC), @Sass answers questions on voting systems at bit.ly/democracy-discussions

I see no low-cost, no-risk solution to a question regarding control of this domain name in case someone dies or otherwise becomes incapacitated. The domain registrar firm understands a relationship with an individual, and maybe a legal entity could be substituted for the individual. But as far as I know, creating a legal entity requires paying a lawyer, and I am unwilling to do that. But the current situation is that so far as the domain registrar firm is concerned, a single human individual owns this domain name. That individual has a credit card, the registrar is able to charge this credit card, and will do so if someone who knows the password orders more services. I am sure it is no surprise to any of you that I am that individual. With no arrangements in place other than these, the forum users bear a risk that I die from CoVid19 or getting run over by a truck or whatever (I am almost 70), and no one renews the domain, and so it expires, which would lead to the forum going under. So a possible solution is I could place trust in several of you to control the domain, and tell you the password, but then I would be effectively putting people I don't really know all that well in a position where they could hit my credit card. I suppose I could make some of you the executors of my estate in my last will and testament. Then you'd have to show the domain registrar your letters testamentary so you could take control of the account. I don't know whether the firm would respond in a timely fashion to such a communication.

The _equalvote.org_ organization has decided to accept this discussion forum as a partner organization. They are a legal entity (I guess) and so the obvious solution would be to transfer the domain name to their control. Then if whoever is in control of the server (again, that is currently I) become unresponsive and someone else has a backup and wants to bring up a new server with the data and code, they can just e'splain that to equalvote.org and it can point the domain name to the new server. I guess I would like to see some statement by active users of the forum that they are willing to trust equalvote.org to that degree, if that is going to be the solution.

@rob @paretoman @Casimir @Andy-Dienes @last19digitsofpi @masiarek @culi @rb-j @marcosb @BTernaryTau @BetterVoting @frenzed @Keith-Edmonds @Toby-Pereira @wolftune @Ted-Stern @wbport @multi_system_fan @Psephomancy @robertpdx @tec @Essenzia

@rob said in Terms for Specific Voting Systems:

I think most of the general public in the US just calls it "voting".

I agree. I think it doesn't occur to most US people that more than one way to vote would be possible, and so it doesn't enter their mind to have a term for the way they do it as to be distinguished from possible other ways.

In one of the antisocial media, when I mentioned some alternative system, someone responded that that would be fake voting.

I suspect that many self-described "conservatives" would expect that any proposal to change the voting system comes from "liberals" looking for a way to win elections unfairly at the expense of "conservatives". I put those terms in quotes because I am referring to people using those terms. I do not know what the users of those terms think the "conservatives" want to conserve or what the "liberals" want to liberate. I would use the terms without horror quotes if I stood ready to answer those questions should you ask them of me.

@Toby-Pereira Maybe I can get them with a limited form of screen scraping.

Or maybe @SaraWolk can prevail upon CES to give us the images. I have no sway to even get CES to acknowledge receipt of a message. While she is at it, she could also ask them for an updated dump of the other data, or just the items added or changed since they sent us the dump they sent.

The first image in that post, on the original site (implemented with Discourse) is rendered with a document element as the following HTML would specify:

<img src="https://forum.electionscience.org/uploads/default/optimized/1X/cf86b73999447d4ed4ca89c8029dac48835e5a33_2_577x499.png" alt="Voters" data-base62-sha1="tBRsJE42NBx6MHq3EKBgNtMIsHp" class="d-lazyload" srcset="https://forum.electionscience.org/uploads/default/optimized/1X/cf86b73999447d4ed4ca89c8029dac48835e5a33_2_577x499.png, https://forum.electionscience.org/uploads/default/optimized/1X/cf86b73999447d4ed4ca89c8029dac48835e5a33_2_865x748.png 1.5x, https://forum.electionscience.org/uploads/default/original/1X/cf86b73999447d4ed4ca89c8029dac48835e5a33.png 2x" width="577" height="499">

The reference to it in the data dump that we received from CES and on which I base the archive, looks like this:

<img src="upload://tBRsJE42NBx6MHq3EKBgNtMIsHp.png" alt="Voters|577x499">

upload: is not a legal scheme for use in a URI. Discourse is parsing it and substituting the long version as above.

Maybe in exchange for an annual monetary tribute, CES would be willing to keep the original site up.

Two places to look (unrelated to one another (so far)):

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_Voting_Party

• https://www.guilded.gg/United-Peoples-Assembly/groups/l3GWYRK3/channels/9c6545c7-15e9-4e59-8173-e86a6375807a/forums/1808331575

The second link requires admission, but admission will probably be forthcoming. This is United People's Assembly, a group of people still debating what formal mandate to take on, but I think the general opinion is in favor of parties in every State, forming a new one and/or working with existing ones, plus in one sense or another a national organization to help make all that work together. The national organization could qualify as a party under FEC rules after sufficient count of State parties agree to make coalition at the national level. Much of the spearheading is coming from Washington (the State, not DC).

In regard to the Green Party of the USA, I have experience that convinces me they are stuck on IRV and laugh at the idea that there is anything wrong with it.

I want to put code up that can run in a browser to simulate elections. A peripheral question I am struggling with concerns how from the user's viewpoint to set up the volatile memory of the parameter values.

I say volatile memory, because at this point I am not planning to tackle allowing people to register and log in so they could store values on the server. So I want to allow that you could fill in form widgets to set up the values you want for the parameters of the simulation, and those would be there in front of you, so long as you didn't navigate to another website. I want to make an encoding of the parameter values available as text that you could copy out and paste somewhere else to save.

It should be possible to load the volatile memory with a set of preset values from the server; those would be constant for a given version of the server.

It should be possible to clear out the parameter values and start over.

It should be possible to edit the volatile memory of the parameters.

So, a question I have is of whether to provide a way that the user could access several named slots in the volatile memory, each slot to have a complete assignment of values to parameters. The alternative would be to just have a single slot.

Why would you expect voters to change their answer between the pre-iteration round and the first focused round?

How should ABC voting treat unmarked candidates?

Who knows how the Gibbard theorem applies to ABC voting? In optimizing my vote, how do I take into account the stances of the other voters? Assume I know them perfectly. Do I maybe exaggerate support for a compromise candidate from D to C, with a metered probability?

which leads to https://github.com/Election-Tech-Initiative/electionguard/blob/main/docs/concepts/Verifiability.md

Suppose a tallying algo is enacted that requires a preference matrix. What grounds could be cited to convince the public that each precinct correctly sums up the preferences in the votes to build the precinct-level addend to the preference matrix?

I first heard of ABC Voting when Beloved Comrade @Ex-dente-leonem posted about it and another system (Score B2R). I think that ABC Voting is so interesting that I'm starting the present post dedicated to just it.

I'm hereby running up the flagpole an alternative name IRV-Llull in contrast to IRV-Ware.

I heard arguments from two individuals who push for three-valued Score with the default being in the middle and the numbers set so that the middle is zero and the bottom is -1. Both of these advocates opine that voters need an explicit way to express impassioned opposition to a candidate. I think they may be right about that need, but I don't like their proposed solution. I hereby suggest that ABC voting fulfills that need not only psychologically, but better, by acting in the tally in a way that honors that impassioned opposition to the max. In this system, a voter can clearly oppose a candidate with any of the grades D, E, or F, because these grades deny the candidate a positive point for the initial ordering. Within that, the system still provides a way to express a preference for the lesser evil over the greater evil, and it provides that without compromising the effect of the voter's expression concerning the voter's preferred candidates, whom the voter will naturally place them up in the A, B, and C region. For these reasons, I want to sing the praises of this system.

For readers coming on this system here for the first time, I'll repeat how it works:

• Voters assign A, B, C, D, E or F to each candidate. Unmentioned candidates, I suggest, get D. This is my sop to those who think such should get the middle in a score system.

• A, B, or C confers a point of tolerance for the candidate; D, E, and F do not.

• The tally starts by arranging the candidates in order of how many tolerating votes they got, with the most tolerated candidate by that measure at the top of the list.

• The Llull stage of the tally begins, as though the candidates had entered the church in the order determined above (or maybe it's the reverse of that order). In any event, the bottom two candidates on the list are compared first, according to how many voters expressed a preference for one over the other minus how many expressed the opposite preference. A candidate who receives an "E" from a given voter, for example, is understood to be preferred by that voter over a candidate who receives an "F". Whichever candidate loses that comparison is removed from the list.

• The bottom-two comparisons according to voter counts who prefer one candidate over the other vs. the opposite preference are repeated until only one candidate remains on the list. That is the winner.

@cfrank I agree that for purposes of "one person, one vote", two approvals or two disapprovals should not count as two votes. However, legislators and judges and juries seem to lack for an ability to think straight.

Someone responded to me by pointing out that voting for-or-against is horrible. I would respond to that response instead of posting a new topic, but the search mechanism in this forum software (NodeBB) doesn't seem to be of much help in digging that conversation up again. And anyway, I want to promote my position to a larger audience if I can.

I predict that the benefits of for-or-against as opposed to FPtP would be revolutionary. I know how I would vote in it for President of the United Snakes of America in 2024.

In the Green-party forum I recently posted about, one of the listeners mentioned a State in which she or he said that the law prohibits voting systems that allow more than one "vote" per voter. This would probably outlaw then Approval and the like. Vote For-or-against would meet that constraint.

When grift organizations e-mail me for donations and mention "democracy", I respond along the following lines. In most cases, no one responds to my response. Their e-mail is only in broadcast mode.

You need to campaign for decoupling money from electoral outcomes via changing to a voting system that gives equal weight to the voters, one voter to another, instead of First Past the Post or RCV-Ware.

• https://www.rangevoting.org/Cash3.html
• https://1787regime.wordpress.com/2024/04/07/not-allowed-to-vote-ones-values/

Equality advocates should pile on, and bring references to systems that are better than strictly-ranked Ware and be ready to explain why they are better and cost no more.

https://mailchi.mp/cb90c9c0ae48/green-party-of-st-louis-meeting-wed-april-19-2017-recent-and-future-elections-6417718?e=321ac5f05b

I think I like it.

ABC || DEF

A Stein
B Williamson
C West
D Kennedy
E Harris
F Trump