[EM] ABucklin doesn't meet Mono-Add-Top or Participation, but meets Mono-Add-Plump. MDDTR and Mono-Add-Plump.
ABucklin and Mono-Add-Top: In the criterion-compliance table that I posted, I said that ABucklin meets Mono-Add-Plump, Mono-Add-Top and Participation. Actually, it only meets Mono-Add-Top. But those aren't important criteria. MDDTR and Mono-Add-Plump: Say the method is MDDTR, and your favorite candidate is F. F doesn't have a winning approval (top + middle) score, because x has significantly more approvals. But x is disqualified by having a (bare) majority voting y over hir. With x disqualified, F wins with the most approvals of any undisqualified candidate. F isn't close to having a top-rating majority. Then you and a few other people show up, and plump for F. (You top rate F, and don't rate anyone else). Now your presence in the election increases the requirement for a majority, with the result that x no longer has a majority ranking y over hir. Now, x wins instead of F, because x has significantly more approvals (F was behind x in approvals by more than the number of newly-arrived voters. By plumping for F, you and the other newly-arrived voters have made F lose. So you storm into the Department of Elections office, to complain about that. The person at the counter says, Excuse me, but do you think that the election was a Plurality election? You see, in Plurality, 1st choice votes are what decide the election. Rank methods look at more than that. They look at your other preferences too. Maybe it's tempting to want 1st choice ratings to decide the election in rank methods too. But they're rank methods, and rank methods needn't act like Plurality. Of course different rank methods look at different things. There is no universal rule saying what rank methods must look at. MDDTA looks at how many people rank some y over some x. (as do other MDD methods) Your ballot says that you don't agree with x's majority defeat by y. Your ballot says that you don't think that x is worse than y, or that, if you do think so, you're too lazy to say so. Therefore, there is no majority saying that x is worse than y. x has more approvals than F does. F loses, rightly. You have nothing to complain about. Yes, it's aesthetically nice if the win is monotonically related to addition of 1st choice ballots, but there is no reason why it should or must be. Rank methods aren't Plurality. Mike Ossipoff Mike Ossipoff Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Fwd: Ranked Choice Voting a Clear Winner in St. Paul Elections
Whatever our feelings or experience with FairVote per se, the fact remains that there is no reason to give any credit to an informal exit polling of nearly 200 voters if there is no semblance of methodology or raw results published. Without more data, it's no better than my taxi driver said. Jameson 2011/11/12 Kathy Dopp kathy.d...@gmail.com I would believe nothing whatsoever that comes from the mouth of the organization FairVote. Usually FairVote spokespersons espouse the opposite of the truth. For instance, this is the same organization that continues to falsely claim that IRV solves the spoiler problem of a nonwinning candidate whose presence in the contest alters who would otherwise win - not; and falsely claims that IRV finds majority winners by misleadingly redefining the word majority to exclude all the voters whose ballots are exhausted by the final round; and falsely tells voters that IRV allows them to safely vote their true preference without worrying about causing their least favorite candidate to win, etc. and on and on. Virtually nothing coming from the mouth of that organization is true. Notice their informal poll could have characterized a 10% confusion rate as almost uniform ease. Who knows. I have learned to trust nothing coming from that misnomered organization. From: David L Wetzell wetze...@gmail.com To: EM election-methods@lists.electorama.com Subject: [EM] Fwd: Ranked Choice Voting a Clear Winner in St. Paul Elections Message-ID: camyhmncqtxidfcvoc--8uyw0bqi_gmdcns5iqbwaw6cqyvq...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 it seems that voters in St Paul liked using IRV for city council elections. dlw -- Forwarded message -- From: FairVote MN i...@fairvotemn.org Date: Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 4:30 PM Subject: Ranked Choice Voting a Clear Winner in St. Paul Elections To: wetze...@gmail.com wetze...@gmail.com ** [image: FairVote MN eNews] http://fairvotemn.org/sites/fairvotemn.org/modules/civicrm/extern/url.php?u=45607qid=347906 Nov. 9, 2011 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE *Ranked Choice Voting a Clear Winner in St. Paul Elections* *Voter outreach, clear ballot yield positive experience in wards where RV is used* ST. PAUL ? One big winner in St. Paul?s city council elections Tuesday: Ranked Choice Voting. Voting reform supporters across Minnesota are elated that the new system?s rollout in St. Paul was the clear success we anticipated, thanks to a comprehensive voter education campaign conducted by FairVote MN and Ramsey County, a well-designed ballot and the system?s inherent ease of use. ?The news today is that there is no news,? Joe Mansky, Ramsey County election manager, told a Pioneer Press reporterhttp://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_19292414. As Ward 3 election judge Robert Mooney said in the same article, the change ?hasn?t been controversial or confusing.? In FairVote Minnesota?s informal exit polling of nearly 200 voters in wards 1, 2 and 3, voters expressed almost uniform ease of use with the new system and most desired to continue using it. ?It?s simple,? ?It?s straightforward,? ?I like it ? if my first choice doesn?t make it, I have a backup choice,? ?I heard little negativity,? and ?It?s high time this was implemented!? were typical comments about the ranked ballot. Early reviews of the ballots from the city show few spoiled ballots. In wards with competitive, multicandidate races ? where voters felt their backup choices could make the difference ? voters overwhelmingly exercised the option to rank candidates. In Ward 2?s close contest between incumbent Dave Thune and challengers Jim Ivey and Bill Hosko, a full 72 percent of voters cast a second-choice vote. Forty percent cast a third-choice vote, 16 percent cast a fourth-choice vote and 10 percent cast a fifth-choice vote. In Wards 1 and 2, where results were decisive in the first round of counting and second choices didn?t come into play, most voters still used their rankings: In Ward 1, 54 percent of voters marked a second choice and 27 marked a third choice; in Ward 3, 62 percent marked a second choice and 30 percent marked a third choice. This demonstrated that the more competitive the race (i.e., the smaller the percentage of votes for the winner or the top candidate in round 1), the more voters ranked. In Ward 2, the contest between Thune, Ivey and Hosko will be decided Monday, when a manual count will be undertaken at Ramsey County Elections Division (90 W. Plato Blvd, St. Paul). The count will begin at 8:30 am and is open to the public. Ballots in that race will be counted in rounds, with the lowest vote-getters eliminated and their votes redistributed to remaining candidates until one has a majority ? or until two candidates remain, and the one with the largest number of votes
Re: [EM] Fwd: Ranked Choice Voting a Clear Winner in St. Paul Elections
I would believe nothing whatsoever that comes from the mouth of the organization FairVote. Usually FairVote spokespersons espouse the opposite of the truth. For instance, this is the same organization that continues to falsely claim that IRV solves the spoiler problem of a nonwinning candidate whose presence in the contest alters who would otherwise win - not; and falsely claims that IRV finds majority winners by misleadingly redefining the word majority to exclude all the voters whose ballots are exhausted by the final round; and falsely tells voters that IRV allows them to safely vote their true preference without worrying about causing their least favorite candidate to win, etc. and on and on. Virtually nothing coming from the mouth of that organization is true. Notice their informal poll could have characterized a 10% confusion rate as almost uniform ease. Who knows. I have learned to trust nothing coming from that misnomered organization. From: David L Wetzell wetze...@gmail.com To: EM election-methods@lists.electorama.com Subject: [EM] Fwd: Ranked Choice Voting a Clear Winner in St. Paul Elections Message-ID: camyhmncqtxidfcvoc--8uyw0bqi_gmdcns5iqbwaw6cqyvq...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 it seems that voters in St Paul liked using IRV for city council elections. dlw -- Forwarded message -- From: FairVote MN i...@fairvotemn.org Date: Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 4:30 PM Subject: Ranked Choice Voting a Clear Winner in St. Paul Elections To: wetze...@gmail.com wetze...@gmail.com ** [image: FairVote MN eNews]http://fairvotemn.org/sites/fairvotemn.org/modules/civicrm/extern/url.php?u=45607qid=347906 Nov. 9, 2011 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE *Ranked Choice Voting a Clear Winner in St. Paul Elections* *Voter outreach, clear ballot yield positive experience in wards where RV is used* ST. PAUL ? One big winner in St. Paul?s city council elections Tuesday: Ranked Choice Voting. Voting reform supporters across Minnesota are elated that the new system?s rollout in St. Paul was the clear success we anticipated, thanks to a comprehensive voter education campaign conducted by FairVote MN and Ramsey County, a well-designed ballot and the system?s inherent ease of use. ?The news today is that there is no news,? Joe Mansky, Ramsey County election manager, told a Pioneer Press reporterhttp://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_19292414. As Ward 3 election judge Robert Mooney said in the same article, the change ?hasn?t been controversial or confusing.? In FairVote Minnesota?s informal exit polling of nearly 200 voters in wards 1, 2 and 3, voters expressed almost uniform ease of use with the new system and most desired to continue using it. ?It?s simple,? ?It?s straightforward,? ?I like it ? if my first choice doesn?t make it, I have a backup choice,? ?I heard little negativity,? and ?It?s high time this was implemented!? were typical comments about the ranked ballot. Early reviews of the ballots from the city show few spoiled ballots. In wards with competitive, multicandidate races ? where voters felt their backup choices could make the difference ? voters overwhelmingly exercised the option to rank candidates. In Ward 2?s close contest between incumbent Dave Thune and challengers Jim Ivey and Bill Hosko, a full 72 percent of voters cast a second-choice vote. Forty percent cast a third-choice vote, 16 percent cast a fourth-choice vote and 10 percent cast a fifth-choice vote. In Wards 1 and 2, where results were decisive in the first round of counting and second choices didn?t come into play, most voters still used their rankings: In Ward 1, 54 percent of voters marked a second choice and 27 marked a third choice; in Ward 3, 62 percent marked a second choice and 30 percent marked a third choice. This demonstrated that the more competitive the race (i.e., the smaller the percentage of votes for the winner or the top candidate in round 1), the more voters ranked. In Ward 2, the contest between Thune, Ivey and Hosko will be decided Monday, when a manual count will be undertaken at Ramsey County Elections Division (90 W. Plato Blvd, St. Paul). The count will begin at 8:30 am and is open to the public. Ballots in that race will be counted in rounds, with the lowest vote-getters eliminated and their votes redistributed to remaining candidates until one has a majority ? or until two candidates remain, and the one with the largest number of votes wins. Presently, Dave Thune leads in round 1, 12 percentage points ahead of second-place finisher Ivey. Ivey leads third-place finisher Hosko by just 57 votes. Ivey garnered the largest share (33 percent) of second-choice votes, with Thune and Hosko receiving 25 percent and 23 percent respectively. Ballots of the two eliminated candidates, Sharon Anderson and Cynthia Schanno, plus write-in ballots, will be redistributed to Thune, Ivey and Hosko
[EM] Criterion-compliance table. Method merit order. Polling and proposing methods.
Mike Ossipoff wrote (11 Nov 2011): Let me know if there are errors in the following table: MAP is Mono-Add-Plump. MAT is Mono-Add-Top. ABE means that the method passes in the Approval Bad Example. = FBC...3P...1CM...SDSC...UP...MAP...MAT...Participation...SFC...ABE -- ApprovalYes...No...NoNo.No...Yes...Yes...Yes.NoNo MTA.Yes...Yes..Yes...No.No...Yes...Yes...No..NoNo MCA.Yes...Yes..Yes...No.No...Yes...Yes...No..NoNo SMDTR...Yes...Yes..Yes...No.No...Yes?.?..NoNo IBIFA...Yes...Yes..Yes...No.No...Yes...NoNo..NoNo MDDAYes...Yes..Yes...No.No...NoNoNo..Yes...No ABucklinYes...Yes..Yes...YesYes..Yes...Yes...Yes.NoNo MDD,ABucklinYes...Yes..Yes...YesYes..NoNoNo..Yes...No MDDTR...Yes...No...NoNo.No...NoNoNo..Yes...Yes Mike, A quick partial reply. SMD,TR fails Mono-add-top and so therefore also Participation. 8: C 3: F 2: XF 2: YF 2: ZF F wins after all other candidates are disqualified, but if 2 FC ballots are added C wins ER-Bucklin(whole), ABucklin on your chart, fails Participation as shown by this demonstration from Kevin Venzke (which also applies to MCA, MTA, and MDD,ABucklin): 5: AB 4: BC A is a majority favorite and wins. But add these in: 2: CA There is no majority favorite and B wins in the second round. IBIFA meets UP provided ballots with enough slots to enable voters to strictly rank all the candidates are used. I strongly disagree with your suggested method merit order, and I'll explain how and why in a later post. Chris Benham Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
[EM] Poll for favorite multi-winner voting system
Following up on last-month's poll for favorite single-winner voting system, I am now doing a poll for favorite multi-winner voting system. Please go to this page to register and vote: http://www.opavote.org/vote?ekey=agNzdHZyEAsSCEVsZWN0aW9uGJTHHww Note that your email will not be shared with anyone and will not be used for any purpose other than this poll. The candidates are: -- Open list PR -- Closed list PR -- Mixed member PR -- Cumulative voting -- Limited voting -- Plurality at-large voting -- Meek STV -- WIGM STV (eg, Scottish STV) -- Other STV -- Approval voting The poll will close on November 20 and I will report results shortly thereafter. best, Jeff _ OpenSTV -- Software for counting STV and ranked-choice voting OpaVote -- Online elections for ranked-choice voting http://www.OpenSTV.org http://www.OpaVote.org Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
