Posts made by Jack Waugh

@cfrank I'm still talking about a single-winner system. The winner would be chosen in the general election.

If the proposal were to have a primary and then always have a runoff, I would think to suggest that the primary should be PR. This would tend to give voters a real choice in the runoff instead of two similar candidates. But you are proposing a kind of primary that under some conditions would obviate the need for a runoff.

I list both names because Clay said he was involved with defining the balance condition.

Offhand, I don't see any reason to object, provided that the primary election method conforms to Shentrup/Frohnmayer balance.

Is it compliant with the favorite-betrayal condition? Does that matter much?

In the Electoral Methods e-mail broadcast, Etjon Basha asks, "So, not even approval would pass? Nothing beyond plurality?".

@cfrank Sara and I disagree on the terminology. My position is that the qualifier Ware makes clear what tallying is called in. So, Ware RCV for the specific system that Rob Ritchie & co. are promoting.

How would those who cast a given type of ballot make group decisions?

@robla It is the "Electorama" area on Discord.

https://discord.gg/CNp3vjhB

@cfrank Consider a score system with a range of 0 through 5 by 1. Giving Harris a 1 would raise her chances of beating, say, Stein, who gets a 5 from me.

@cfrank I honestly think that Trump and Harris deserve prison for life for supporting the killing of 17,000 Arab children. In a rating system, they both deserve the bottom rate. But on the ranking side, I would put Harris above Trump, because of his domestic fascist tendencies. Coupling would prevent honesty.

I suspect that the tightness of coupling between the rating part and the ranking part is a problem with these schemes. The first ballot should have separate sections (or "races" in the terms of bettervoting.com) for rating and ranking, if we want the absolute peak of accuracy.

Or how about use the Score winner as one finalist, and the Minimax winner as the other.

So, to make a more concrete proposal for how to narrow the field to two finalists, we could say collect Score-style five-star ballots, and present the Score winner as one finalist, and do something like Copeland to get the other finalist, who would be the calculated Condorcet winner if there is one, and would be otherwise pretty good as determined by Copeland-like techniques in the absence of a Condorcet winner.

A real runoff is not complex to understand, at least in principle. Do you think that actually running one could produce a more accurate result than would be produced by the best of systems (like approval-seeded Llull, for example) that perform "instant" runoff rounds of tallying, but do not require the voters to return for a second polling?

How large? What would be a good name for the resulting system? Would it address your original concerns equally so well as a second polling would?

Approval-seeded Llull:

Ballots: voters classify each candidate as good or bad, and within each of those classes, they rank the candidates, with equal ranking permitted.

Tally:

First, the tally orders the candidates by how many "good" classifications they got from the voters. The candidate that got the most goes at the top.

Next, the tally compares the bottom two candidates on the list with regard to how many voters ranked one over the other minus how many ranked them in the opposite order. The loser of this comparison is stricken from the list.

The tally repeats the bottom-two comparisons until only one candidate remains; this is the winner.

Discussion:

Approval-seeded Llull is an hybrid rating-ranking system. The rankings are less tightly coupled to the ratings, as compared to how tightly they are coupled in STAR.

Why this might solve the problems you bring up:

There is no incentive to warp the ranking aspect for a strategic motivation coming from the rating aspect of the tally, nor vice versa (maybe?).

Example application to a real political controversy: Consider the 2024 US Presidential election. A voter would not have to classify Ms. Harris as "good" to rank her over Mr. Trump. They could receive the same rating but different rankings. Trump would have been less likely to win, I think, than he would have under STAR, because with STAR, voters who could not bring themselves to give Harris even a 1, on the grounds that she supports the elimination of every Arab in Gaza, would thereby be forced into not ranking her above Trump.

Do you think that Approval-seeded Llull adequately addresses the concern?

Inability to comment seems to be a new problem. It didn't restrict me when I first started using it, even as an ordinary user separate from the initial admin accounts.

https://forby.io/