[EM] Comprehensive, simplist, and most informative Indicative Voting

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[EM] Comprehensive, simplist, and most informative Indicative Voting

steve bosworth

Yes, Approval would work, but unlike Majority Judgment (Balinski & Laraki, Majority Judgment (2010, MIT) Approval does not guarantee finding the option most supported by an absolute majority, nor would it inform us how highly all the MPs grade each of the options.

Majority Judgment would allow the Commons to decide on one of the many options by an absolute majority as a result of counting one ballot from each of the MPs.  Each MP is simply asked to “grade” as many of the options listed as either Excellent (ideal), Very Good, Good, Acceptable, Poor, or “Reject”.  Each option not explicitly graded is counted as “Reject” by that voter.  The same grade can be given to more than one choice.

As a result, all the options will have received the same number of grades, but a different set.  The winner is the choice that has received an absolute majority of grades that are equal to, or higher than, the highest median-grade given to any of the choices.


What do you think?

Steve


________________________________________

   1. Approval style voting could be used in Brexit Vote in
      Parliament? (Gervase Lam)
   2. Re: Approval style voting could be used in Brexit Vote in
      Parliament? (Gervase Lam)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 14:00:13 +0000
From: Gervase Lam <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [EM] Approval style voting could be used in Brexit Vote in
        Parliament?
Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Note that (Yes/No) Indicative votes are not legally binding and is
named for the purpose of the vote rather than how the vote should be
done.


*?https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47670348

"Alongside the PM's deal, as many as six other options could be voted
on, including:

- revoking Article 50 and cancelling Brexit
- another referendum
- the PM's deal plus a customs union
- the PM's deal plus both a customs union and single market membership
- a Canada-style free trade agreement
- leaving the EU without a deal

It is possible other options which could command reasonable levels of
support might be added to the mix.

At the end all would be voted on simultaneously. MPs would fill out a
ballot paper on each, voting for or against, and the relative support
could then be seen."



------------------------------


http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com


------------------------------

End of Election-Methods Digest, Vol 177, Issue 17
*************************************************

----
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[EM] Comprehensive, simplest, and most informative Indicative Voting

William WAUGH
The UK should use Score Voting with a range of 0 through 100 by ones to decide what Brexit alternative has the broadest support.

----
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [EM] Comprehensive, simplest, and most informative Indicative Voting

robert bristow-johnson

 

i presume there is their favorite choice that they score 100 and there is their hated choice that they score 0.

so how much should the Brit voter score their second choice?  and their third choice?



---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: [EM] Comprehensive, simplest, and most informative Indicative Voting
From: "William WAUGH" <[hidden email]>
Date: Sun, March 31, 2019 6:57 pm
To: [hidden email]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

> The UK should use Score Voting with a range of 0 through 100 by ones to
> decide what Brexit alternative has the broadest support.
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info
>

 

 

 


--

r b-j                         [hidden email]

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
 

 

 

 


----
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [EM] Comprehensive, simplest, and most informative Indicative Voting

William WAUGH
She should score them according to the value she places on each outcome.

On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 12:09 AM robert bristow-johnson rbj-at-audioimagination.com |electorama| <[hidden email]> wrote:

 

i presume there is their favorite choice that they score 100 and there is their hated choice that they score 0.

so how much should the Brit voter score their second choice?  and their third choice?



---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: [EM] Comprehensive, simplest, and most informative Indicative Voting
From: "William WAUGH" <[hidden email]>
Date: Sun, March 31, 2019 6:57 pm
To: [hidden email]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

> The UK should use Score Voting with a range of 0 through 100 by ones to
> decide what Brexit alternative has the broadest support.
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info
>

 

 

 


--

r b-j                         [hidden email]

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
 

 

 

 

----
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info

----
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [EM] Comprehensive, simplest, and most informative Indicative Voting

Kevin Venzke
That's including first and last choice, I assume. It's not going to be as informative if everybody automatically uses 100 and 0.

Kevin


Le lundi 1 avril 2019 à 00:58:09 UTC−5, William WAUGH <[hidden email]> a écrit :


She should score them according to the value she places on each outcome.

On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 12:09 AM robert bristow-johnson rbj-at-audioimagination.com |electorama| <[hidden email]> wrote:

 

i presume there is their favorite choice that they score 100 and there is their hated choice that they score 0.

so how much should the Brit voter score their second choice?  and their third choice?



---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: [EM] Comprehensive, simplest, and most informative Indicative Voting
From: "William WAUGH" <[hidden email]>
Date: Sun, March 31, 2019 6:57 pm
To: [hidden email]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

> The UK should use Score Voting with a range of 0 through 100 by ones to
> decide what Brexit alternative has the broadest support.
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info
>

 

 

 


--

r b-j                         [hidden email]

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
 

 

 

 

----
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info

----
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [EM] Comprehensive, simplest, and most informative Indicative Voting

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax

I don't write much on election methods of late, because I came to see voting methods as a problem of interest, all right, but not actually the core problem, and I saw little interest in the voting systems community in the fundamental, underlying structural issues that then lead to endless regress on voting systems I will here, lay that out.

First of all, parliamentary procedure evolved to consider one question, and only one question, at a time, a question that can be answered Yes or No, and for an option to win, rules varied, but the best rules (my opinion) required a true majority of an assembly. Moving away from an absolute majority was a move down a slippery slope that might be justified in this or that condition, and the development of fascism is always "reasonable." After all, trains run on time, etc. Under Robert's Rules, truly important issues require a two-thirds majority, or sometimes an absolute majority of all eligible voters.

What was called the "nuclear option" in the Senate was always possible, but avoided because it was important to decide, first, *by supermajority* that the body was ready to vote on the main issue. Increasingly, over time, that was chipped way, going to 60% from two-thirds for cloture. The stated reason is always efficiency, as with every fascist move. Can't have a vocal minority gumming up the works, can we? Then the nuclear option was based on the rule that an absolute majority can do anything with an organization. The right of the minority against an absolute majority is to leave, and, of course, if fascism is prevalent, that is prohibited.

(I have been using "fascism" lately quite as Mussolini used it, where the will of the collective, as represented by the "leader(s)" is to be enforced, and individual freedom (he called it "individualism")  is to be suppressed, for collective welfare. This has always been a strain in human organization, in dialectic with freedom. The future is in synthesis, where it is understood that diversity is crucial to human survivability and collective wisdom, so restrictions on freedom of thought and expression are to be minimized to what is immediately and emergently necessary. So can the FDA ban books and burn them if they contain "quackery"? The fascist answer is, "Of course, and it must!" Yet there are other possibilities, such as creating and requiring informed consent, warning and notice, as has been done with cigarettes and cigarette advertising. But in a fascist environment, which modern social media readily become (even though it paradoxically seems to be maximally free), synthetic compromises are drowned in the noise. Each side of a debate is demonized by the other.)

So, for elections, as a way to broaden choice, it was allowed to have more than one option that could receive votes, and the rule was vote for one. But there was another rule, often forgotten, that to win an election, the winning candidate was required to receive a majority of the votes, not merely a plurality. If not, then the election was to be repeated. The whole thing, including nominations. Further, every marked ballot (if it was marked with any mark) was considered to be a vote, counted in the basis for majority. Restricted runoffs were instituted to attempt to find that majority, but they have well-known flaws, most notably center squeeze. This could all be fixed, but it does not actually address a core issue, the submission of questions to an electorate that is largely ignorant, on the one hand, or easily manipulated by media and mob mentality. (Classic arguments against democracy.)

The old majority-required-to-prevail rule still applies in assemblies that meet face-to-face, because it can be quickly done. It could also be quickly done in modern times with internet voting. But there is a killer solution that also addresses the more fundamental problem of an ignorant electorate, and "ignorant" here is not a moral failure. Presenting complex issues to an electorate that does not have time to truly investigate and consider them is a formula for failure, though it can work well enough that we have not immediately recognized and addressed the problem. The killer solution is to create a truly representative assembly, chosen as fully trusted (or as fully as possible) to make all those decisions, including officer elections. Asset Voting, in a word or two.

As democracy matures, it will come to value consensus as distinct from the win-lose thinking of majority rule. But majority rule is necessary because the alternative is minority rule, not consensus. That is, the majority has the right of decision, but will, to foster the strength of the organization, protect the minority. I have seen organizations where the majority goes out of its way to ensure that the minority is fully heard, and minority reports are issued if the minority desires it. Such organizations have been phenomenally successful.

And it can all fall apart of they drop the protections of the minority in the name of efficiency. Fascism.

What may be appropriate for the Brexit issue would be polling, especially given that there was a vote. The ideal polling method is obviously Score. Problems with Score are caused by its use for *decisions*.

The actual decision would be made by the best representative body, which can deliberate and debate and amend and all that. If that body is not truly representative *that's the problem," and it is going to be a worse problem if Britain exits the EU, because Parliament will be less restrained. So, from this thinking, the public can be polled, as an advisory poll, used to inform Parliament, which, representing the people, will decide, not being bound by the advice, but informed by it. Sanely, Parliament will respect the opinions of the people, but those change and can be quite labile. If it decides to cancel Brexit or modify it, it will address the concerns, it will seek to unify British society.

Or it will seek personal, individual political advantage and gain, and if enough members do that, Britain sails off to Hell in a handbasket.

Now, if Score is to be used, what form?

There are those who want to see min/max scoring either required or used. This is all designed to create definitive decisions more efficiently. Reality is that voters have views of different strength, and the most informed voters might rationally have stronger opinions. Perhaps. Not always!

Human choice is not as finely graded as to be clearly expressable on a scale of 0-100 or 0-99. I would suggest using 0-9, anything more complicates the ballot without benefit, other than attempting to force choice, and forced choice when the voter has no strong preference creates noise in the system. I used to suggest having a + checkbox that would allow a voter to express a distinction within a score, but this is really a fish bicycle in a *poll*. I can think of many refinements, such as two parts to the question. First part: how important is this to you? Second part, within the choices, mark favorite, rejected, or in between.

Asking voters to rank candidates where there is no significant preference between them is, again, asking them to create noise. In the criticism of Score by that Borda advocate, he posited the scenario where a majority of voters preferred A, giving A a 10 (say), but also gave B a 9, but enough voters gave B a 10 and B a 0, to cause B to win, and this was somehow considered offensive. The idea is that the B voters were "insincere" and merely wanted B to win, so they downvoted A. However, this shows how fascist concepts ("first choice of a majority must win") can easily slip in. The choice of B, given the votes, will satisfy every voter, it is a true consensus choice (and this is especially visible if there was another candidate, C, truly disliked by a majority.)

But all those considerations fall away if the poll does not decide, but merely informs the actual decision-makers, who would make that decision by standard deliberative process: a two-thirds vote to decide when the Yes/No question is ready for a vote, and then a vote on the question, and if a majority does not vote Yes, the question fails and no decision is (yet) made.

This respects the rights of the minority. A mature assembly, seeking genuine public unity, may go even further than that, being willing to be patient with the "idiots on the other side."

(Another way to state this under standard rules is "first choice of a two-thirds majority wins." They can amend the question to be that choice (that takes mere majority), they can then vote Previous Question, and then only a majority is required. So the loss of the supermajority requirement for cloture in the U.S. Senate is a major blow to deliberative democracy, not a mere detail. The political environment has become shamelessly fascist.)

(It is an error to equate fascism with left/right or racism or other specific traits of specific fascist regimes. In three different versions of Mussolini's paper on fascism, he equated fascism in the twentieth century with the rise of the right, in another version, he omitted the statement, and in another official translation he equated it with the rise of the left. The common factor in all three versions was "the century of the collective." Hence the symbol of fascism, the strength created by binding sticks -- individuals -- into a unity, the binding being the power of leaders and collective will.)

On 4/1/2019 7:34 AM, Kevin Venzke wrote:
That's including first and last choice, I assume. It's not going to be as informative if everybody automatically uses 100 and 0.

Kevin

I agree. There is no reason to require or even suggest all to use the full scale. Using less than full scale then can allow absolute preference strength to be expressed. Indeed, the votes can then be analyzed in different ways. If the poll is used for "information" as distinct from decision, it can be analyzed six ways till Sunday. Individual voting patterns matter! So one can sum the votes (basic, standard score), average the votes (excluding abstentions), etc. I also used to suggest renormalization, that all ballots would be normalized to use the full range.

One could even include a "none of the above" option, I want something else. Artificially restricting options to a small list is, again, fascist, but there is a limit to how far one can practically go to accommodate diversity.

The ballot should be designed for ease of understanding and use. I would suggest that every option on the ballot have a faction supporting it, which would, within itself, a voluntary association of members of Parliament, establish information and arguments to be placed in a voter information pamphlet.

It would be possible to create this poll as a shining example of how a democracy can create process which unifies the public and the government, rather than divides and separates, without oppressing minority opinion.

No more original content below.



Le lundi 1 avril 2019 à 00:58:09 UTC−5, William WAUGH [hidden email] a écrit :


She should score them according to the value she places on each outcome.

On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 12:09 AM robert bristow-johnson rbj-at-audioimagination.com |electorama| <[hidden email]> wrote:

 

i presume there is their favorite choice that they score 100 and there is their hated choice that they score 0.

so how much should the Brit voter score their second choice?  and their third choice?



---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: [EM] Comprehensive, simplest, and most informative Indicative Voting
From: "William WAUGH" <[hidden email]>
Date: Sun, March 31, 2019 6:57 pm
To: [hidden email]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

> The UK should use Score Voting with a range of 0 through 100 by ones to
> decide what Brexit alternative has the broadest support.


----
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info

----
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [EM] Comprehensive, simplest, and most informative Indicative Voting

Juho Laatu-4
In reply to this post by William WAUGH
Since the brexit debate is very competitive, we might use rankings instead of ratings (or alternatively derive rankings from the ratings). A good approach would be to generate a set of proposals at the same level, e.g. very short complete proposals that would cover both the withdrawal agreement and the final agreement. MPs would rank those proposals, and the resulting pairwise comparison table would be published. That would be sufficient to see which proposals might be good widely supported compromises.


> On 01 Apr 2019, at 04:57, William WAUGH <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> The UK should use Score Voting with a range of 0 through 100 by ones to decide what Brexit alternative has the broadest support.
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info

----
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [EM] Comprehensive, simplest, and most informative Indicative Voting

robert bristow-johnson
In reply to this post by William WAUGH

 

It seems to me that you are ignoring the inherent pressure to vote tactically.  If the voter scores their second choice too high (any higher than zero), they will be helping to defeat their first choice with their second choice.  If they score their second choice too low (any lower than 99), they are helping their least favorite candidate possibly defeat their contingency choice.

**only** with Ranked-Choice Voting (but heaven forbid it be Instant Runoff Voting) is the voter not faced with this tactical decision the moment they enter the voting booth.

 


--

r b-j                         [hidden email]

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."


---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: [EM] Comprehensive, simplest, and most informative Indicative Voting
From: "William WAUGH" <[hidden email]>
Date: Sun, March 31, 2019 10:57 pm
To: [hidden email]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

> She should score them according to the value she places on each outcome.
>
> On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 12:09 AM robert bristow-johnson
> rbj-at-audioimagination.com |electorama| <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> i presume there is their favorite choice that they score 100 and there is
>> their hated choice that they score 0.
>>
>> so how much should the Brit voter score their second choice? and their
>> third choice?
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
>> Subject: [EM] Comprehensive, simplest, and most informative Indicative
>> Voting
>>
From: "William WAUGH" <[hidden email]>
>> Date: Sun, March 31, 2019 6:57 pm
>> To: [hidden email]
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> > The UK should use Score Voting with a range of 0 through 100 by ones to
>> > decide what Brexit alternative has the broadest support.
>> > ----
>> > Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
>> info
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> r b-j [hidden email]
>>
>> "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----
>> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
>> info
>>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info
>

 

 

 

 

 

 


--

r b-j                         [hidden email]

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."


----
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info