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.

https://electionscience.org/voting-methods/runoff-election-the-limits-of-ranked-choice-voting/

In Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964), the Supreme Court held that "One Person, One Vote" means that "the weight and worth of the citizens' votes as nearly as is practicable must be the same." The theequalvote document goes on to argue, validly, that the weight and worth is not equal without the balance constraint being met. The logic is that for example if it takes two million voters of one opinion to balance off only one million voters of the opposite opinion, the weight and worth of each person's vote is not the same. Consequently, IRV and FPtP do not provide for "One Person, One Vote" and are therefore not legitimate.

Our Internet Domains

We are holding:

votingtheory.org ($14/yr)
votingtheory.com ($9/yr)
votingtheory.net ($12/yr)
voting-theory.com ($9/yr)

Obviously, we have to keep votingtheory.org, because that's our official domain. So I will renew that right after the meeting.

During our founding meeting, I grabbed voting-theory.com (note the hyphen) by mistake. So I'm planning to cancel that.

A user of the old forum advised we grab the .com and .net names to avoid being impersonated by any unfriendly agents who could turn up. I don't know how important this is. If the council decides to keep them and can raise the money other than from me, I will cooperate with the decision. Otherwise, I am inclined to drop them.

Our other money expense is $60/yr. for the server. This could reasonably double if we get a second server in a different city to hold backup data. Currently, my personal server, which I am paying for anyway for other purposes, is holding the backups. I should double check whether the backup mechanism I set up is really working.

As I mentioned, I hope we can recruit someone as treasurer.

As I have also mentioned, in regard to tech support, we are in a more vulnerable position than would be ideal, because it all currently depends on one person (me). I don't mind doing it, but something could always happen to me (as something could happen to any single individual person). If someone can offer back-up support, they should submit their SSH public key.

In solidarity for a better tomorrow (or at least, a tomorrow),

@SaraWolk outside-the-box thinking should be hyphenated.

Not wholly sure whether this bears on the design of voting systems, but it looks as though it might.

@NevinBR, where I said "they have already taken on the expense of the logistics of IRV", I should have said "they have already taken on the expense of the logistics of IRV, but have repealed IRV."

Voters provide a score for each candidate. The score can be any complex number whose norm does not exceed 1. The candidate whose total score has the largest norm wins.

This is a horrible system even though it is formally balanced.

We should try to recruit a second volunteer who can do SSH stuff. If anything happens to me, the project is too vulnerable. In particular, having a scheme for regular data backups is crucial. I have set up some such scheme, but a second pair of eyes on it would make it more robust.

@SaraWolk I think the version you propose in the sidebar would be fine, except that I would substitute "many" for "a large number of".

I have implemented a search feature for the archive.

Our Internet Domains

We are holding:

votingtheory.org ($14/yr)
votingtheory.com ($9/yr)
votingtheory.net ($12/yr)
voting-theory.com ($9/yr)

Obviously, we have to keep votingtheory.org, because that's our official domain. So I will renew that right after the meeting.

During our founding meeting, I grabbed voting-theory.com (note the hyphen) by mistake. So I'm planning to cancel that.

A user of the old forum advised we grab the .com and .net names to avoid being impersonated by any unfriendly agents who could turn up. I don't know how important this is. If the council decides to keep them and can raise the money other than from me, I will cooperate with the decision. Otherwise, I am inclined to drop them.

Our other money expense is $60/yr. for the server. This could reasonably double if we get a second server in a different city to hold backup data. Currently, my personal server, which I am paying for anyway for other purposes, is holding the backups. I should double check whether the backup mechanism I set up is really working.

As I mentioned, I hope we can recruit someone as treasurer.

As I have also mentioned, in regard to tech support, we are in a more vulnerable position than would be ideal, because it all currently depends on one person (me). I don't mind doing it, but something could always happen to me (as something could happen to any single individual person). If someone can offer back-up support, they should submit their SSH public key.

In solidarity for a better tomorrow (or at least, a tomorrow),

I can make the "Discussion" button on the home page point to /forum/recent instead of to /forum, for what that may be worth.

[withdrawn]

[withdrawn]

Edit: In the parties and movements you belong to or are willing to join, you can advocate regarding their positions on voting systems.

Originally I posted here a suggestion to join a particular movement and advocate within it. Many of the comments below are rightly calling me out on that. Our purpose here is to discuss voting systems and remain neutral about party and ideology.

I misread your original post. I was thinking, collect rating ballots, use methods each of which is designed to pick a single winner, and choose at random from among the winners that the methods identify.

@rob said in SACRW2: Score And Choose Random Winner from 2 complementing methods:

honest/sincere voting

Please consider the following system. The voters submit 32 hex digits as their vote. The tally sorts the votes, concatenates them together, and computes the SHA 256 hash of the whole. It interprets this result as an integer and divides the count of candidates into that. The remainder is used to indicate the winner.

Which votes are sincere?

I'm becoming more and more convinced that people can't be convinced that Approval is expressive enough. I think it probably is, but it's extremely hard to get across. And I am not 100% sure that Approval is really as expressive as I have been arguing that it is. Maybe there is a hole in the argument that I have been advancing. So I'm thinking we should advocate for Score with finer granularity in the single-winner cases, unless the local activists argue that it's just a nonstarter logistically. How about using a range with seven values? I suspect that spacing them according to a logistic function would work best strategically, but that's impossible to explain to people, so how about seven values equally spaced then?