[EM] Typo. Two polls.

Michael Ossipoff Mon, 12 Nov 2012 15:18:11 -0800

In my previous post, I meant to say:

"Voters shouldn't have strategic need to abandon their favorite."

I accidentally said "should" instead of "shouldn't".

Polls:

Polls don't seem to be popular among EM's current frequent-posters.

Of course neither am I, because I frankly criticize some people's
favorite methods, and embarrassingly ask for justifications and
mitigating advantages, to outweigh some listed disadvantages.

That's ok. I'm not doing this to gain popularity.

Proposing a menu of methods won't do. It's necessary to propose _one_
proposal. That means choosing. Choosing requires criticism, to explain
why something shouldn't be the choice.

Anyway, so a poll proposed by me, then, would be doubly unpopular. For
example, my most recent poll got zero participation. I've never
considered that a reason to not propose a poll.

So I'm going to propose two polls. Regardless of whether or not there
will be participation, I do so because I like to, and because I'd like
these poll proposals to go into the EM record, for the reason
described immediately below.
.
As I've often pointed out, you can't know what it would be like to use
the various voting systems unless you use them--in polls. Only thereby
can you know which one(s) you like.

And even merely asking a poll's voting question brings some of that
voting experience,, even if the reader doesn't actually write out a
ballot and post it.

Also, posting a poll includes some discussion of the choices between
the alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I propose a poll that chooses among the Declaration-mentioned voting systems.

Approval
Score (also called "Range")
Majority-Judgment
Instant-Runoff
Condorcet
....(in various proposed versions)

The Condorcet versions currently being proposed include;

Ranked-Pairs(wv)
Beatpath(wv)
Ranked-Pairs(margins)
Beatpath(margins)
Improved-Condorcet-Top (ICT)
Symmetrical ICT.

For one thing, as I said, using the voting systems is the only way to
find out what they re like. Also, if we every have better government,
there will likely be initiatives or referenda regarding a choice of
voting systems, calling for a choice like the one in this poll. Also,
the relative merits of these methods is the subject of discussion
here, and so polling about that naturally follows.

I've argued that most likely the only way we're going to get a better
voting system for state and national office will be by electing to
government office a party that offers a better voting system. The
Greens are the most winnable progressive party, and they offer IRV in
their platform.

So, suppose the Greens won the presidency and most of Congress, and
most of the state legislatures. IRV would soon be the voting system in
the U.S.

No doubt the Greens would facilitate a much expanded power of
initiative, in all states, and even at the national level. Maybe
Constitutional amendments regarding voting systems too.

In any case, surely there'd be state initiatives or referenda, or even
a national initiative or referendum, regarding voting systems. Yes,
voting systems are now decided by states, but we don't know that there
wouldn't be a Constitutional amendment that would change that, and
make it a national issue.

Anyway, there'd likely be state initiatives or referenda, or a
national initiative or referendum, regarding the choice of a voting
system--if there's a lot of interest in that choice.

Of course the initial voting system would be IRV, because that's what
the GPUS platform offers. No doubt, then, a vote on voting systems
would be by IRV.

It would be instructive to use IRV for that vote here, then. But, with
a different electorate, there might not be much point in using the
same voting system. That's why I suggest using all of the
Declaration's mentioned voting systems.

Though I don't like IRV's FBC failure, with our existing electorate,
an official public vote on voting systems could happen only after the
election of a Green government. As I said, an electorate that could
elect a Green government would be competent to make good use of IRV,
and so IRV would be a perfectly satisfactory method under those
conditions. Or at least I claim it would. I mention this because
others, too, might feel that IRV's merit would be better under the
conditions assumed by this voting-systems poll. This poll assumes that
the public have just elected a Green government.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I propose a poll that chooses among the 6 presidential candidates
who've been in televised and Internet debates.

Jill Stein (GPUS)
Rocky Anderson (Justice Party)
Virgil Goode (Constitution Party)
Gary Anderson (Libertarian)
Barak Obama (Democrat)
Mitt Romney (Republican)

For both of these polls, I suggest balloting for all of the
Declaration-mentioned voting systems.

...the ones I listed above.

As for the Condorcet versions proposed, I suggest balloting for these
(but only two rankings are needed):

Ranked-Pairs(wv)
Beatpath(wv)
Ranked-Pairs(margins)
Beatpath(margins)
Improved-Condorcet-Top (ICT)

Instant Runoff's 0-info u/a strategy is the same as that of
Ranked-Pairs(margins) and Beatpath (margins)
ICT's 0-info u/a strategy is the same as that of Ranked-Pairs(wv) and
Beatpath(wv).

Symmetrical ICT would be convenient, because it doesn't give strategic
need to rank any unacceptable candidates, but that would require a
separate 3rd balloting. I suggest just two rank-ballotings:

One for Ranked-Pairs(wv), Beatpath(wv) and ICT
Another for Ranked-Pairs(margins), Beatpath(margins) and IRV

So, for both polls, I suggest the following ballotings:

Approval
Score
MJ
Ranked-Pairs(wv), Beatpath(wv), and ICT
Ranked-Pairs(margins), Beatpath(margins), and IRV

A few comments:

I've discusses strategic fractional ratings, for when there's a
chicken dilemma. When there isn't one, it can still be desirable to
rate an alternative barely below top. Maybe there isn't an inclination
toward defection, but two factions still don't want to give eachother
full ratings, because then the winner would be decided by whatever few
people defect. Giving, say, .99 max would mean that the larger of the
two factions would automatically win, if one of them does.

Ranked-Pairs and Beatpath seem to meet many of the same criteria. One
table showed RP meeting some criterion that Beatpath fails.

Ranked-Pairs is incomparably simpler and briefer than Beatpath, to
define and propose to the public. That's most relevant to public
proposals.

Beatpath evidently has a more efficient implementation, and a briefer
computer program. That's most relevant to organizations.

Beatpath is most intluitively described and explained in terms of SSD.

I don't recommend Beatpath or Ranked-Pairs for any purpose.

If anyone chooses to participate in these polls, they would do so by
posting a message with the subject-line "Ballot".

Below are sample ballots for the two polls. They're also the first
ballots for these polls. Probably the only ballots for these polls.
That's ok. That's sufficient to demonstrate the use of the methods for
these choices.

Ballot for poll on voting systems:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approval ballot:

Approval, Score, MJ, Symmetrical ICT, ICT, IRV

Ballot for 0-100 Score:

Approval: 100
Score: 100
MJ: 99
Symmetrical ICT 100
ICT 100
IRV 99

All of the others: 0

Ballot for A-F Majority-Judgment:

(MJ advocates prefer rating-labels that are emotionally expressive
and/or evaluative, such as the U.S. school grading system of A,B,C,D,F
used in this poll)

Approval: A
Score: A
MJ: A
Symmetrical ICT: A
ICT: A
IRV: A

All of the others: F

Ballot for Ranked-Pairs(wv), Beatpath(wv), and ICT:

1. Approval, Score, MJ, Symmetrical ICT, ICT, IRV

2. Ranked-Pairs(wv)
3. Beatpath(wv)
4. Ranked-Pairs(margins)
5. Beatpath(margins)

Ballot for Ranked-Pairs(margins), Beatpath(margins), IRV:

1. Approval
2. Score
3. Majority-Judgment
4. Symmetrical ICT
5. ICT
6. IRV
7. RP(wv)
8. Beatpath(wv)
9. RP(margins)
10. Beatpath(margins)

Ballots for poll on 2012 presidential candidates:

Approval:

Jill Stein

0-100 Score:

Jill Stein: 100

All of the others: 0

A-F Majority-Judgment:

Jill Stein: A

All of the others: F

For both rank ballotings:

1. Jill Stein
2. Rocky Anderson
3. Virgil Goode
4. Gary Anderson
5. Barak Obama
6. Mitt Romney

With just one acceptable candidate, the two 0-info rankings don't differ.

The detailed information needed to do other than 0-info ranking with
the Condorcet methods typically won't be available.

...except when the voting public has the specific firm beliefs that
the tv has instilled in it: The belief that the Democrat is acceptable
:-) , and the belief that the winner can only be the Democrat or the
Republican. Given those beliefs, optimal strategy in Beatpath,
Ranked-Pairs,and all traditional unimproved Condorcet methods calls
for ranking the Democrat alone in 1st place.

That concludes the description of these two polls, and the sample
ballots for them.

Mike Ossipoff
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

[EM] Typo. Two polls.

Reply via email to