Re: [EM] Why the concept of "sincere" votes in Range is flawed.
--- On Wed, 28/1/09, James Gilmour wrote: > I had written: > > > I do not even think about putting all the > > > remaining options into any > > > order of preference, much less attempt it. > > Juho Laatu > Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 7:24 PM > > Same with me. It is however probably not > > a big problem for you to pick some other > > product if your favourite brand is out > > of stock. > > > Maybe, Juho, but that is VERY different from having to put > ALL the other options into an order of preference - which > is what was > being demanded by some others here. > > As I have said before, I am totally opposed to compulsory > voting and I am totally opposed to having to rank every > candidate when I > genuinely do not have any preferences among some of them. > > James Yes, compulsory voting is not a good idea but allowing partial and equal rankings is. One can also allow some default (partial) inheritance/preference orders to be used (instead of forcing the voter to list all candidates) when the number of candidates is high (e.g. a group with 10 candidates, party 30, and left or right wing 100) but the voter will benefit of ranking more than few of them. Juho Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] The structuring of power and the composition of norms by communicative assent!
Dave Ketchum wrote: >> Yes and no. What we're discussing is described in the original post, >> at the top of the thread. The terms are defined there. Is anything >> unclear there? > When? Anyway: Sorry? When was it posted? Jan 6: http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2009-January/023872.html > Proxy is an existing word with an idea - a meaning. > > I see that Abd has a new word, DP, for an idea that is similar enough that > a slightly modified label makes distinguishing the ideas doable. > > You have a new, DIFFERENT, idea but chose to use an existing word to label > this - NONproductive! Well, you haven't read the original post. The word 'proxy' occurs only where I cite Abd. Please read it, and then share your critique. -- Michael Allan Toronto, 647-436-4521 http://zelea.com/ Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Fwd: PRESS Release - IRV case appealed!
Kathy, Would you explain what you mean by "unequal treatment"? Thanks, - Jan On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Kathy Dopp wrote: > FYI, I believe that this appeal by plaintiffs will prevail and I hope > that will put an end to IRV/STV in the U.S. I haven't seen a copy of > the actual Appeal document yet. I hope that the attorneys emphasized > the unequal treatment of voters by IRV/STV methods and not just its > nonmonotonicity. > > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] The structuring of power and the composition of norms by communicative assent!
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 14:25:57 -0500 Michael Allan wrote: Dave Ketchum wrote: Real topic here is whether you MEAN secret when you use the word... Scout's honour - when I say 'secret', I mean secret. The vote is anonymous. The voter's identity is undisclosed. All that good stuff, just like a traditional secret ballot. 8^) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Proxy voting and delegated voting are procedures for the delegation to another member of a voting body of that member's power to vote in his absence. Proxy appointments can be used to form a voting bloc that can exercise greater influence in deliberations or negotiations. A person so designated is called a "proxy" and the person designating him is called a "principal." You seem to be thinking of something else. Yes and no. What we're discussing is described in the original post, at the top of the thread. The terms are defined there. Is anything unclear there? When? Anyway: Proxy is an existing word with an idea - a meaning. I see that Abd has a new word, DP, for an idea that is similar enough that a slightly modified label makes distinguishing the ideas doable. You have a new, DIFFERENT, idea but chose to use an existing word to label this - NONproductive! -- da...@clarityconnect.compeople.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026 Do to no one what you would not want done to you. If you want peace, work for justice. Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Why the concept of "sincere" votes in Range is flawed.
I had written: > > I do not even think about putting all the > > remaining options into any > > order of preference, much less attempt it. Juho Laatu > Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 7:24 PM > Same with me. It is however probably not > a big problem for you to pick some other > product if your favourite brand is out > of stock. Maybe, Juho, but that is VERY different from having to put ALL the other options into an order of preference - which is what was being demanded by some others here. As I have said before, I am totally opposed to compulsory voting and I am totally opposed to having to rank every candidate when I genuinely do not have any preferences among some of them. James No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.14/1918 - Release Date: 27/01/2009 07:26 Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
[EM] Fwd: PRESS Release - IRV case appealed!
FYI, I believe that this appeal by plaintiffs will prevail and I hope that will put an end to IRV/STV in the U.S. I haven't seen a copy of the actual Appeal document yet. I hope that the attorneys emphasized the unequal treatment of voters by IRV/STV methods and not just its nonmonotonicity. -- Forwarded message -- From: Andy Cilek Date: Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 12:59 PM Subject: FW: PRESS Release - IRV case appealed! To: kathy.d...@gmail.com PRESS RELEASE January 27th, 2009 The Minnesota Voters Alliance appealed yesterday the Hennepin District Court decision upholding Minneapolis' Instant Runoff Voting election methodology as constitutional. The Alliance considers the appeal necessary considering, as a case of first impression, the undermining of constitutional principles delineated by the court. In one part of the decision for instance, the court found it an acceptable risk that a voter, in ranking candidates under an IRV election, can hurt his or her favorite candidate simply by ranking them as their first choice. This is indeed perverse. Andy Cilek, spokesperson for the Minnesota Voters Alliance said, "It is an unacceptable risk for the people that in their intent to help a candidate win, and to politically associate with that candidate, he or she can actually hurt that candidate's chance of winning by voting him first. No candidate is guaranteed a win, but no voter should be subjected to have another voters' second or third choice impair a voter's original intent." It is the contention of the Minnesota Voters Alliance to bring to the appellate court's attention what it finds questionable legal reasoning of the lower court. According to the Alliance, the court did not appreciate the development and current trends in the law applicable to protecting voters' rights. Mr. Cilek also stated, "Minneapolis citizens who voted for IRV in the City's referendum in 2006 did not have the right to violate the voting rights of the minority, and they may have been misled regarding the implications of IRV. In fact, they were never told of the negative impact upon an individual's right to vote. But, even if they wished to endorse a different way of voting in municipal elections, they certainly did not realize the City would write ordinances after the fact in conflict with the Minnesota and United States Constitutions." The Minnesota Voters Alliance expects the City of Minneapolis to file a motion for an expedited hearing. The motion would by-pass the Court of Appeals and have the appeal heard directly before the Minnesota Supreme Court. This could ensure a decision before the 2009 municipal election cycle begins. Mr. Cilek indicated the appellants would join that motion if filed. Minnesota Voters Alliance www.MNVoters.org For more info, contact Andy Cilek Andy Cilek – aci...@att.net -- Kathy Dopp The material expressed herein is the informed product of the author's fact-finding and investigative efforts. Dopp is a Mathematician, Expert in election audit mathematics and procedures; in exit poll discrepancy analysis; and can be reached at P.O. Box 680192 Park City, UT 84068 phone 435-658-4657 http://utahcountvotes.org http://electionmathematics.org http://kathydopp.com/serendipity/ Post-Election Vote Count Audit A Short Legislative & Administrative Proposal http://electionmathematics.org//ucvAnalysis/US/paper-audits/Vote-Count-Audit-Bill-2009.pdf History of Confidence Election Auditing Development & Overview of Election Auditing Fundamentals http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/paper-audits/History-of-Election-Auditing-Development.pdf Voters Have Reason to Worry http://utahcountvotes.org/UT/UtahCountVotes-ThadHall-Response.pdf Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Why the concept of "sincere" votes in Range is flawed.
Yes, cyclic votes are not very rational nor required. Also some preference strengths may be illogical (e.g. when opinion A>C is weaker than either of A>B and B>C). In competitive elections weak opinions may often not be needed in general. Juho --- On Tue, 27/1/09, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote: > Juho Laatu wrote: > > Another approach to offering more > > flexibility (maybe not needed) and > > more strategy options (maybe not > > wanted) is to allow the voter to > > fill the pairwise matrix entries > > in whatever way. This means that > > also cycles can be recorded. > > > > One can interpret the basic > > Condorcet rules so that they do > > not rule out this option. (The > > ballot format is not defined.) > > > > (Are there good examples where > > these more flexible approaches > > would provide some definite > > improvements?) > > I think that's too flexible. Allowing a single voter to > give multiple votes (but at fractional power) can be > justified by that the voter is judging the candidates on > seperate metrics. The sum matrix is still a proper > tournament matrix. However, letting the voter arrange his > contribution to the Condorcet matrix as he wishes may let > him move the matrix out of what could be reached by ordinary > votes, which seems nonsensical. > > If one desires such flexibility, it should at least be > phrased in terms of contests. That is, setting M(A,B) to q > means you prefer A to B by fraction q, or that A won in a > "match" of some sort when facing B (such as with > round-robin tournament matrices in sports). Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] The structuring of power and the composition of norms by communicative assent
--- On Mon, 26/1/09, Michael Allan wrote: > Two > specialized voting systems that intercommunicate (state and > public) > can give better results than one system, on its own. There are both positive and negative factors. > > The public vote is maybe more > ""sincere"" > > in the sense that that opinion will hold > > (since doing otherwise would not look nice) > > but not more sincere in the sense of > > representing her true feelings inside > > (maybe e.g. more unstable ones). > > True, rigid opinions are not sincere. And I never > considered that a > fear of admitting past mistakes could make public > expression > (including votes) more rigid than private - but only in > some cases, as > the level of fear varies widely. > > On the other hand, I argue that public expression is likely > to be more > sincere (also truthful and legitimate), not only because of > *anticipation* of challenges, but also because of actual > challenges. > So a vote may be challenged as insincere if it is > inconsistent with > other expressions of the voter - "I don't believe > you are sincere. > You say one thing, and you do another!" Such > challenges are not > possible when the vote is kept private. But I think people also try to keep the internals of their head in good order. They don't voluntarily become irrational inside. Many believe that they are almost always right and consistent, and want to maintain this belief. > Likewise, a vote may be challenged as untruthful if > it's for something > manifestly false - e.g. an urban transit plan that defies > the laws of > physics - "Don't you realize? You're voting > for a plan that assumes > zero gravity!" But this challenge requires a public > vote. > > Likewise, a vote may be challenged as illegitimate if > it's for > something that would contradict an accepted norm - e.g. a > vote to > expell all people of a particular skin colour - > "Don't you realize? > You're voting to discriminate on the basis of > race!" But again, this > challenge requires a public vote. Sometimes the pressure of the society may force the voters to make good choices. But also the other direction is possible, e.g. when the dominant opinion is to discriminate some group of people. Not also that it is possible the people will not vote at all (or vote as some opinion leaders expect them to vote) if they fear that this is a test of their understanding. Juho Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] language/framing quibble
--- On Mon, 26/1/09, Fred Gohlke wrote: > Good Morning, Juho > > Let me start by apologizing for my tardy response. > Although it was not the only cause, there was an extenuating > circumstance: We were invaded ... by our offspring. My > wife and I celebrated our 57th wedding anniversary and, for > some reason, our family thought that worthy of note. Congratulations. > To > tell you the truth, after thinking about my life with my > wife, I agreed with them. I am uncommonly fortunate. > > > re: "On the other hand a representational democracy > needs some > structure to handle different political opinions, > ..." > > Does reason not provide a better structure than bias? People are not always good at reason based free discussions. People need basic terminology to discuss about the matters in some compatible way. The required structure could be language based, but could also lead to the concept of corresponding opinion groupings. > > > re: "... and having parties is not a bad approach for > taking care > of this need." > > I disagree. It is a terrible, self-defeating approach. > > Many humans lament the depredation of war; particularly > those subject to its ravages. Why, then, is the best > political system we can devise one based on confrontation? > Can we not see that confrontational methods must lead to > confrontational results? Do we lack the wisdom and judgment > to seek a method informed by our reason rather than our > passion? The methods should be improved continuously since there are still many problems. I think all political debates easily become confrontational, both free discussion based and fixed position (e.g. party) based. > > Most people think parties are necessary so you are among > the majority. I don't think parties are necessary. There can be also other approaches to politics. > You may take comfort from that, but it gives > me none. I look at the evolution, just during my lifetime, > of gigantic entities that dominate our existence and > devastate our planet; I look at one nation invading another; > I look at monstrous greed thriving on deceit and > obfuscation, and I think, "Oh, Oh! There must be a > better way. We've got to do better than this." Yes. We are not really a civilized society yet. Few species kill each others as eagerly and as intentionally (and knowing that this is not right) as we do. Juho > > Fred Gohlke > > Election-Methods mailing list - see > http://electorama.com/em for list info Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Why the concept of "sincere" votes in Range is flawed.
--- On Mon, 26/1/09, Raph Frank wrote: > On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Juho Laatu > wrote: > > Another approach to offering more > > flexibility (maybe not needed) and > > more strategy options (maybe not > > wanted) is to allow the voter to > > fill the pairwise matrix entries > > in whatever way. This means that > > also cycles can be recorded. > > More flexibility can be obtained using a range/score like > ballot. > > For example, assuming a rating of 100 counts as 1 vote, if > I rate one > candidate at 150 and another at 25, then that counts as a > full vote in > favour of the first candidate. However, if the difference > is less > than 100, then the value entered into the matrix is only a > fraction of > a vote. The condorcet winner is then determined based on > the sum of > all the matrices, as per normal condorcet. > > What is nice about this method is it gives the voter full > control over > what kind of voting method they would like. > > It is possible to emulate > - approval > - range/score > - condorcet (equal ranks allowed) > > This assumes that all the voters fill in the ballots in a > certain way > for each method. > > Allowing full flexibility (subject to a max value in each > square) on > filling out the matrix itself would give the voters more > freedom. > However, I think that would yield to massive voter > overload. Also, > there might be strategic issues. Here's one approach to collecting all kind of data at one go. Also this one doesn't allow cycles nor all combinations of preference strengths. A ratings based ballot with values from -inf to inf and some (voter given or fixed) threshold values. A = 1000 B = 200 max_support = 100 C = 50 approval = 30 D = 1 min_support = 0 E = 0 F = -100 max_preference_strength = 10 Approval interpretation is A=B=C>D=E=F. Range interpretation is A=B=100, C=50, D=1, E=F=0. Rankings interpretation is A>B>C>D>E>F. Rankings interpretation with preference strengths is A>B>C>D>(0.1)>E>F I'm not sure if anyone really wants all this. The first practical implementation might be a Condorcet election that covers also ratings data for polls. Juho Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Why the concept of "sincere" votes in Range is flawed.
--- On Mon, 26/1/09, James Gilmour wrote: > Juho Laatu > Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 12:29 AM > > What I mean is that decision making > > is such a natural part of everyday > > life that people are very used to > > that. Often they even enjoy making > > decisions (e.g. when shopping, or > > as big managers). > > Maybe I am an unusual shopper (mainly food in a supermarket > with more than 30,000 lines), but my discrimination is > limited to > picking the one brand I want from among the many on > display. I do not even think about putting all the > remaining options into any > order of preference, much less attempt it. > > James Same with me. It is however probably not a big problem for you to pick some other product if your favourite brand is out of stock. Juho Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] The structuring of power and the composition of norms by communicative assent
Dave Ketchum wrote: > Real topic here is whether you MEAN secret when you use the word... Scout's honour - when I say 'secret', I mean secret. The vote is anonymous. The voter's identity is undisclosed. All that good stuff, just like a traditional secret ballot. 8^) > From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia > > Proxy voting and delegated voting are procedures for the delegation to > another member of a voting body of that member's power to vote in his > absence. Proxy appointments can be used to form a voting bloc that can > exercise greater influence in deliberations or negotiations. A person so > designated is called a "proxy" and the person designating him is called a > "principal." > > You seem to be thinking of something else. Yes and no. What we're discussing is described in the original post, at the top of the thread. The terms are defined there. Is anything unclear there? -- Michael Allan Toronto, 647-436-4521 http://zelea.com/ Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Why the concept of "sincere" votes in Range is flawed.
Juho Laatu wrote: Another approach to offering more flexibility (maybe not needed) and more strategy options (maybe not wanted) is to allow the voter to fill the pairwise matrix entries in whatever way. This means that also cycles can be recorded. One can interpret the basic Condorcet rules so that they do not rule out this option. (The ballot format is not defined.) (Are there good examples where these more flexible approaches would provide some definite improvements?) I think that's too flexible. Allowing a single voter to give multiple votes (but at fractional power) can be justified by that the voter is judging the candidates on seperate metrics. The sum matrix is still a proper tournament matrix. However, letting the voter arrange his contribution to the Condorcet matrix as he wishes may let him move the matrix out of what could be reached by ordinary votes, which seems nonsensical. If one desires such flexibility, it should at least be phrased in terms of contests. That is, setting M(A,B) to q means you prefer A to B by fraction q, or that A won in a "match" of some sort when facing B (such as with round-robin tournament matrices in sports). Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
