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?
Jack Waugh
@Jack Waugh
Author of the code[1] that presents the archive[2] and the home page[3]. Also, I set up the hosting[4] and installed[5] NodeBB.
"William Waugh" in older fora on this subject.
[1] https://bitbucket.org/voting-theory-forum/archive
[2] https://www.votingtheory.org/archive
[3] https://www.votingtheory.org/
[4] https://bitbucket.org/voting-theory-forum/sys_adm_ubuntu
[5] https://bitbucket.org/voting-theory-forum/root
Best posts made by Jack Waugh
-
RCV IRV Hare
-
RE: Transparency of https://www.votingtheory.org/
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.
-
RE: Ranked Robin Disadvantages -
Here is a ranking of forms of expression by expressivity:
- Least expressive: strict ranking.
- Middlingly expressive: ranking allowing equal-ranking.
- Most expressive: ratio scale.
-
Weekly Live Q&A
Every Tuesday, at 20:00 New York time (16:00 UTC), @Sass answers questions on voting systems at bit.ly/democracy-discussions
-
Mitigating Risks To This Forum
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
-
RE: Terms for Specific Voting Systems
@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.
-
RE: Technical To-do List
@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.
-
RE: For the Language Geeks
@Toby-Pereira said in STAR-like method ("reverse STAR"?):
Copeland
Which leads down a rabbit-hole all the way back to the middle ages and writings in Latin. https://d-nb.info/1212798317/34 talks about the sources and gives text and translations in PDF, and leads to https://www.math.uni-augsburg.de/htdocs/emeriti/pukelsheim/llull/ , which gives the text and translations as web pages.
-
North Dakota
I suppose everyone got the bad news. Thomas Jefferson said the citizens have a right to revolt.
Latest posts made by Jack Waugh
-
Toward A Second Vote On Voting Systems
I suggest a list of steps:
- ask who is interested in participating in the subsequent steps. People can answer "yes" or "no" and that may be valuable information.
- if someone observes that, in the opinion of the someone, sufficient count of people have responded "yes" to the above to merit going on to the next step, that someone can so announce.
- discussion of motivations for a vote
- discussion of ground rules (e. g., whoever nominates a voting system is committing to tally in it, what categories are we going to have, timeline for next steps)
- attempt to recruit participants who haven't up to now been active here (e. g. from other fora on this topic)? If agreed in discussion of ground rules mentioned above.
- nominations
- vote
- tallying
-
RE: End of poll-balloting at the next midnight
There wasn't much participation. Only two people voted, and there were only two voting systems in which both voters voted. Some who nominated, did not vote. Some who voted, did not vote in all the systems they nominated.
-
RE: A Real World Opportunity for Comparative Voting System Analysis!
@cfrank, I look forward to your publication of a tally that includes your vote and others'.
-
RE: Polling Ourselves
Tally in Score{100, 99, 90, 50, 10, 1, 0}:
(Ossipoff + Waugh = total)
same order as I listed the nominees
- 100 + 100 = 200 Approval
- 100 + 000 = 100 Ranked-Pairs(winning-votes) equal-ranking allowed
- 000 + 099 = 099 STAR
- 001 + 100 = 101 Score{2, 1, 0}
- 050 + 099 = 149 Score{100, 99, 90, 50, 10, 1, 0}
- 050 + 100 = 150 Score{5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0}
- 000 + 001 = 001 0 to 9 scale (only used for ranking), ranked pairs, winning votes
- 000 + 090 = 090 Smith//Score (0 to 9 ballot)
- 000 + 000 = 000 quantile-normalized score, with integer scores from 0 to 100
- 000 + 100 = 100 0-9 score
Reorder by descending totals:
- 100 + 100 = 200 Approval
- 050 + 100 = 150 Score{5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0}
- 050 + 099 = 149 Score{100, 99, 90, 50, 10, 1, 0}
- 001 + 100 = 101 Score{2, 1, 0}
- 100 + 000 = 100 Ranked-Pairs(winning-votes) equal-ranking allowed
- 000 + 100 = 100 0-9 score
- 000 + 099 = 099 STAR
- 000 + 090 = 090 Smith//Score (0 to 9 ballot)
- 000 + 001 = 001 0 to 9 scale (only used for ranking), ranked pairs, winning votes
- 000 + 000 = 000 quantile-normalized score, with integer scores from 0 to 100
Approval beats the runner-up by 25%, he exclaimed.
-
RE: Polling Ourselves
Tally in 0-5:
(Ossipoff + Waugh = total)
same order as I listed the nominees
- 5 + 5 = 10 Approval
- 5 + 0 = 05 Ranked-Pairs(winning-votes) equal-ranking allowed
- 1 + 4 = 05 STAR
- 0 + 5 = 05 Score{2, 1, 0}
- 2 + 5 = 07 Score{100, 99, 90, 50, 10, 1, 0}
- 3 + 5 = 08 Score{5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0}
- 1 + 1 = 02 0 to 9 scale (only used for ranking), ranked pairs, winning votes
- 0 + 4 = 04 Smith//Score (0 to 9 ballot)
- 0 + 0 = 00 quantile-normalized score, with integer scores from 0 to 100
- 0 + 5 = 05 0-9 score
Reorder by descending totals:
- 5 + 5 = 10 Approval
- 3 + 5 = 08 Score{5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0}
- 2 + 5 = 07 Score{100, 99, 90, 50, 10, 1, 0}
- 5 + 0 = 05 Ranked-Pairs(winning-votes) equal-ranking allowed
- 1 + 4 = 05 STAR
- 0 + 5 = 05 Score{2, 1, 0}
- 0 + 5 = 05 0-9 score
- 0 + 4 = 04 Smith//Score (0 to 9 ballot)
- 1 + 1 = 02 0 to 9 scale (only used for ranking), ranked pairs, winning votes
- 0 + 0 = 00 quantile-normalized score, with integer scores from 0 to 100
Approval has a 20% lead over the runner-up.
-
RE: Polling Ourselves
I don't know how to tally in RP(wv).
For purposes of tallying
Score(0-5)
Score(100, 99, 90, 50, 10, 1, 0),here is an attempt to interpret @MichaelOssipoff's ballot while staying confined to the actual nominees.
First, let's list again the nominees as I had compiled above.
- Approval
- Ranked-Pairs(winning-votes) equal-ranking allowed
- STAR
- Score{2, 1, 0}
- Score{100, 99, 90, 50, 10, 1, 0}
- Score{5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0}
- 0 to 9 scale (only used for ranking), ranked pairs, winning votes
- Smith//Score (0 to 9 ballot)
- quantile-normalized score, with integer scores from 0 to 100
- 0-9 score
Now let's bring in @MichaelOssipoff's "ballot" as of the most recent place where he tries to present it in full:
@michaelossipoff said in Polling Ourselves:
By Score(0-5) (for elections):
Approval: 5
RP(wv): 5
Score(0-5): 3
Score(100, 99, 90, 50, 10, 1, 0): 2
Score(0-10) & Hybrid : 1... [skipping entries "for polls", a category we never agreed on]
By Score(100, 99, 90, 50, 10, 1, 0) (elections):
Approval: 100
RP(wv): 100
Score(0-5): 50
Score(100, 99, 90, 50, 10, 1, 0): 50
Score(0-10): 10
Score (2, 1, 0): 1He later explains what "Hybrid" means:
@michaelossipoff said in Polling Ourselves:
By “Hybrid”, i just meant Score(0-9) balloting counted as RP(wv).
...
I forgot about STAR. I rank & rate it with Hybrid.So that explains Hybrid.
The other problem with Michael's ballot is that it mentions Score(0-10), a non-nominee. In my preliminary tally above, I counted that as 0-9 score. But this time, I'm in the mood to be strict (since this is the end), so I am going to throw it out.
So let's map the entries of his Score(0-5) ballot to the nominees:
- 5 Approval
- 5 Ranked-Pairs(winning-votes) equal-ranking allowed
- 1 STAR
- 0 Score{2, 1, 0}
- 2 Score{100, 99, 90, 50, 10, 1, 0}
- 3 Score{5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0}
- 1 0 to 9 scale (only used for ranking), ranked pairs, winning votes
- 0 Smith//Score (0 to 9 ballot)
- 0 quantile-normalized score, with integer scores from 0 to 100
- 0 0-9 score
And let's do the same wth his Score(100, 99, 90, 50, 10, 1, 0) ballot:
- 100 Approval
- 100 Ranked-Pairs(winning-votes) equal-ranking allowed
- 000 STAR
- 001 Score{2, 1, 0}
- 050 Score{100, 99, 90, 50, 10, 1, 0}
- 050 Score{5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0}
- 000 0 to 9 scale (only used for ranking), ranked pairs, winning votes
- 000 Smith//Score (0 to 9 ballot)
- 000 quantile-normalized score, with integer scores from 0 to 100
- 000 0-9 score
-
RE: Polling Ourselves
@michaelossipoff said in End of poll-balloting at the next midnight:
Score(100, 99, 90, 50, 10, 1, 0)
Your and my ballots are the only ones I know about. I tried to tally them in Score(100, 99, 90, 50, 10, 1, 0), but I based that version of the tally on an interpretation of your ballot that turned out to be not quite in accord with your later clarification. But the lead that that tallying shows for Approval over the rest of the pack is probably pretty accurate.
-
RE: A Real World Opportunity for Comparative Voting System Analysis!
I'm not sure what the polling is,
It starts here and is taken up here.
In general about keeping up with posts to this forum, the initial page of the forum, as pointed to by the home page of the website, shows the posts that were most recently posted or most recently received comments. It may be necessary to refresh it.
but if it's voting systems, my polling is given by my "sign off" below my posts.
symmetric-quantile-normalized-score [10] cardinal-condorcet [9] ranked-condorcet [9] approval [8] cardinal-metric [7.5] ranked-bucklin [7] star [6] ranked-irv [5] ranked-borda [4] score [3] for-against [2] distribute [1] choose-one [0]
There are three problems with this list relative to the poll described above (which has reached its deadline anyway). 0) you mention voting systems that have not been nominated, 1) you vote in a system that has not been nominated, and 2) you didn't post it in response to the discussion of the poll, at the second reference above.
-
RE: Quantile-Normalized Score
@cfrank Well, maybe some of that is more restrictive than necessary.
The ballots can be referred to again for rounds of tallying (maybe impractical for public office because of integrity issues, but applicable in organizations that trust their IT departments) but again treated additively, just in the context of some candidates already having been eliminated from consideration by prior rounds. I included this in a recent proposal here.