Forum Council

@lime you could also have a persistence diagram that shows the support level of each candidate at every possible cutoff. This produces “score proportion” profiles that indicate the fraction of voters who score each candidate at least a given score. It’s possible to define a dynamic threshold or even an integral across all thresholds.

@gregw that’s a good question, I think that would be a contingency clause. I’m no lawyer and I don’t know much of anything about those or the limitations about how they can be structured.

@Lime I agree with @Jack-Waugh. 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. It’s also dangerous territory to even bring up certain terms in the context of a legal argument, because terms that were previously undefined and may have left some room for interpretation are then liable to collapse into a narrower scope that sets a precedent. That means we have to be very careful, because if it gets screwed up once, it will be all that much harder to unscrew it in the future.

@lime said in STLR - Score Than Leveled Runoff might not be too complex for voters:

...

I wouldn't add anything about tactics; much better to avoid discussing it. I'd rather encourage voters to give honest ratings of each of the candidates, so we can get rid of spoiler effects; instructing them on how to vote tactically (or worse still, instructing them to normalize ballots) increases the rate of spoiled elections.

I disagree.

First off, let's separate official communication about an election from communication from a person's or a group's political takes.

The official communication about an election should indeed avoid laying out or suggesting tactics. It should only state the freedom of movement the voter has in filling out the ballot without invalidating it, and how the tally will work to determine the winner.

In non-official channels of communication, I see urging "honesty" as problematic and dishonest. Voting is not an opinion poll; it is an exercise of political power. It's like steering a boat. When you command "right full rudder", it's not an opinion, but a muscular exercise that feeds into the whole dynamic of the boat's motion in accord with the Laws O' Physics (TM), the design of the boat, the propeller's rotational velocity, etc.

What reasoning leads you to think that Score voters pushing exaggerated support hose toward compromise candidates tends to spoil elections? They are still giving more support to their true favorites. If enough proportion of voters are standing with them, that candidate can win.

Urging "honest" votes as though the election were an opinion poll is just sucker bait. People who follow your urging are giving up power to their opponents.

The Gibbard theorem showed that optimal voting takes any guesses or estimates of the positions of other voters into account.

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

I'm not sure why these would pose a problem for score, as phrased. Under score, the candidate with the largest number of votes wins.

You are getting into dangerous rhetoric. If we say that score points are "votes", it will sound as though we are not "one person, one vote". A vote in Score assigns a score to each candidate.

@lime well, people who oppose reform (aka those in power) will find ways to concoct detailed arguments against the adoption of any reform proposal, and questionable constitutionality is a low bar.

@gregw, then I predict that Faction A will within a few elections figure out that it should use the maximum value (5) and minimum value (0) of the permitted range. I think factions don't usually voluntarily give up power. Elections are contentious.

@jack-waugh that will work if everybody does it. However, it’s likely that people will not go through with that unless they have the same kind of discipline it takes not to constantly check stock values.

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

How do you think Score rates in "constitutionality" compared to approval?

Score Voting also conforms to Wesberry vs. Sanders, but not to the provisions you mention that require "plurality", "the most", etc.

Here's a tactic to make Approval have the same effect, in a large election (thousands of voters) as finer-grained Score. First, decide what your tactical Score vote would be. Normalize that to a scale from 0 to 1 and treat that number as a probability. Approve the candidate with that probability.

@gregw said in STLR - Score Than Leveled Runoff might not be too complex for voters:

Would you also add something like:
“A 99 score is tactically useful for supporting your second-choice candidate when the first-choice candidate might not be popular enough to win.”

No, I wouldn't include that in official instructions or information. It is only a personal opinion. The other parts you said seem right.

Please give an example of a nuanced vote and explain how you think it could work to the disadvantage of the person or faction that casts it.