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?
Author of the code that presents the archive and the home page. Also, I set up the hosting and installed NodeBB.
"William Waugh" in older fora on this subject.
Best posts made by Jack Waugh
RCV IRV Hare
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
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: 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: 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: Voters’ Party
Two places to look (unrelated to one another (so far)):
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.
RE: Forum Graphics and Design
The archive pages should have, in my opinion, in addition to obviously their respective main contents, the following elements:
- an extremely clear indication that the user is in archive-land.
- link to the forum.
- breadcrumbs for navigating upward.
Do you have any suggestion for style and layout for the archive pages to look consistent with the home and "about" pages?
Coming Soon -- Slider-controlled Simulator α Release
Coming Soon -- Slider-controlled Simulator α Release
Who Is Doing This
The forum is controlled by a Council, which currently has four members. The forum council has not incorporated itself and so I don't know that it has a legal existence or can own anything, but the members have agreed to form it for the purpose of running the present forum. I believe I have sent the credentials for running everything to the members. Of course, the main key comprises the credentials for controlling the domain names.
I believe that applications to join the forum council would be welcome.
Currently, the council has no officers; everyone is simply a member. In particular, there is as yet no treasurer and there are no established procedures for receiving donations and paying expenses. I have been footing the bill for the server at $5/mo. and that for the domain registrations, on the order of $20 annually for each.
The current council members:
- Sara Wolk
- Connor Frankston
- David Hinds
- Jack Waugh (me)
Ms. Wolk is affiliated with equal.vote and starvoting.org and receives compensation for her work for those organizations. Ms. Wolk has been setting up the forum meetings using the Zoom conferencing service. There is no regular schedule of meetings and they have been called when any member thought there was a need to make one or more decisions. Motions are offered and seconded and formally voted on for all decisions, and minutes kept.
I am currently the only volunteer with the technical knowledge to maintain the server.
- Blain Cellars
- Gary Lietke
- Sara Wolk
The Council members are also the admins.
Latest posts made by Jack Waugh
RE: A Real World Opportunity for Comparative Voting System Analysis!
Will they cast rating ballots?
RE: Entropy-Statistic-Weighted Approval Voting
I assume you will throw out the votes that approve everyone or no-one.
This weighting favors those who approve half the candidates over those who approve just one or all but one. What grounds are there for not weighting them equally?
RE: BINARY DECISION-MAKING
Since you cite the Modified Borda Count (which I guess is as described at http://www.deborda.org/modified-borda-count/ ), it would seem that you are thinking about cases where a collective decision is sought as a single choice among some number of alternatives. So an example might be Puerto Rico remains a "commonwealth", becomes independent, or becomes a State; that would be three options from among which only one can be settled on.
What are the grounds or justifications for constraining every voter from awarding so many points as she chooses (from within a range fixed in advance) to each candidate? An example system that is permissive in this regard is STAR Voting.
RE: Considerations for Proportional Representation
I judge all your points above valid, relevant, and well explained. I also appreciate your caveats about there being other considerations as well, etc.
I think these points argue for Liquid Democracy.
RE: In Favor of All US Residents Organizing Politically
@cfrank Further regarding violence, heinous violence is already routine with the current officials. Much of it is directed outside the borders. Some is directed at poor people inside the borders. A purpose I think the new organization should take on is a reduction in violence.
RE: In Favor of All US Residents Organizing Politically
@cfrank, I agree with your assessment about the parasitism. Where you write "scam", I first misread it as "scum", and I agree with either reading.
In regard to nonviolent regime change, recall that after the 1787 rewrite of the US Constitution, and after, I guess, many States had ratified the new version, and after Congress as specified in the new constitution had met, the old congress under the Articles of Confederation dissolved itself, based on the observation that a new government, having some grounds of legitimacy, was in operation. There was no violence around that change. Moreover, that change did not obey an amendment formula from the Articles; it was a true revolution. By analogy, a revolution could be carried out in modern times, if enough proportion of the people can be recruited to participate or at least endorse.
In Favor of All US Residents Organizing Politically
I judge that the people who live in what is called the US have sufficient grounds to organize among themselves independently of the State governments and of the US so as to make collective decisions to try to mitigate suffering in the coming ecological, economic, and social collapses, and to end US imperialism and US torture.
A right for the people to change their government is not a new idea. It is cited in the Declaration of Independence.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.