[EM] testing... 1,2,3

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
36 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[EM] testing... 1,2,3

robert bristow-johnson
... does this thing work?

'cuz i got news from Burlington Vermont regarding ranked-choice voting (after all we went through a decade ago) and i might could use a little bit of help.

--

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] testing... 1,2,3

Kristofer Munsterhjelm-3
On 03/12/2019 07.00, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
> ... does this thing work?
>
> 'cuz i got news from Burlington Vermont regarding ranked-choice voting (after all we went through a decade ago) and i might could use a little bit of help.

Yes, it does work. I've just been busy with non-voting things (as well
as finding out how to design voting methods with desired properties).

What are the news from Burlington?

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

[EM] Burlington VT reconsidering IRV 10 years after IRV failed to elect the Condorcet Winner

robert bristow-johnson


> On December 3, 2019 4:03 AM Kristofer Munsterhjelm <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>  
> On 03/12/2019 07.00, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
> >
> >  i got news from Burlington Vermont regarding ranked-choice voting (after all we went through a decade ago) and i might could use a little bit of help.
>
>
> What are the news from Burlington?
>

okay, Burlington is pretty liberal.  While there is one Republican in City Council (who also happens to preside over the council and even more coincidently was the Republican candidate for mayor in the 2009 IRV election, gathering the most 1st-choice votes but losing to the Prog candidate in IRV) the Progs in City Council have reintroduced a Charter Change resolution to return to IRV, now they are calling it "RCV" but it is the same Single Transferable Vote procedure used in RCV elections everywhere.  The language of the Charter Change is posted below.

But there was a little pushback from other councilors (and myself) for Burlington to not repeat mistakes from the past, namely that of electing a candidate other than the clearly shown Condorcet Winner.

This is all in a hurry.  In two weeks Council will make the decision whether or not to include the question to the ballot for Town Meeting Day in March 2020.  On Monday Dec 9th, the Charter Change Committee will consider the language of the bill and vote on what shall be brought to the whole Council to include on the ballot.

I want to figure out some good language to change this from regular-old IRV to Bottom-Two Runoff, Single Transferable Vote, BTR-STV .  If someone is good at writing legal language or if this BTR-STV has had legislative language written for it somewhere else, I would like to see it.

The language that needs to be changed, to make this RCV Condorcet-compliant is:

"... The candidate with the fewest votes after each round shall be eliminated ..."

How can we clearly and concisely change that to Bottom-Two Runoff?

--

r b-j                  [hidden email]

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."




All elections of mayor, city councilors and school commissioners shall be by ballot, using a system of ranked choice voting without a separate runoff election. The chief administrative officer shall implement a ranked choice voting protocol according to these guidelines:
 (1) The ballot shall give voters the option of ranking candidates in order of preference.
 (2) If a candidate receives a majority (over 50 percent) of first preferences, that candidate is elected.
 (3) If no candidate receives a majority of first preferences, an instant runoff re-tabulation shall be performed by the presiding election officer. The instant runoff re-tabulation shall be conducted in rounds. In each round, each voter’s ballot shall count as a single vote for whichever continuing candidate the voter has ranked highest. The candidate with the fewest votes after each round shall be eliminated until only two candidates remain, with the candidate then receiving the greatest number of votes being elected.
 (4) The city council may adopt additional regulations consistent with this subsection to implement these standards.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [EM] Burlington VT reconsidering IRV 10 years after IRV failed to elect the Condorcet Winner

Kristofer Munsterhjelm-3
On 03/12/2019 16.54, robert bristow-johnson wrote:

>
>
>> On December 3, 2019 4:03 AM Kristofer Munsterhjelm <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>  
>> On 03/12/2019 07.00, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>>>
>>>  i got news from Burlington Vermont regarding ranked-choice voting (after all we went through a decade ago) and i might could use a little bit of help.
>>
>>
>> What are the news from Burlington?
>>
>
> okay, Burlington is pretty liberal.  While there is one Republican in City Council (who also happens to preside over the council and even more coincidently was the Republican candidate for mayor in the 2009 IRV election, gathering the most 1st-choice votes but losing to the Prog candidate in IRV) the Progs in City Council have reintroduced a Charter Change resolution to return to IRV, now they are calling it "RCV" but it is the same Single Transferable Vote procedure used in RCV elections everywhere.  The language of the Charter Change is posted below.
>
> But there was a little pushback from other councilors (and myself) for Burlington to not repeat mistakes from the past, namely that of electing a candidate other than the clearly shown Condorcet Winner.
>
> This is all in a hurry.  In two weeks Council will make the decision whether or not to include the question to the ballot for Town Meeting Day in March 2020.  On Monday Dec 9th, the Charter Change Committee will consider the language of the bill and vote on what shall be brought to the whole Council to include on the ballot.
>
> I want to figure out some good language to change this from regular-old IRV to Bottom-Two Runoff, Single Transferable Vote, BTR-STV .  If someone is good at writing legal language or if this BTR-STV has had legislative language written for it somewhere else, I would like to see it.
>
> The language that needs to be changed, to make this RCV Condorcet-compliant is:
>
> "... The candidate with the fewest votes after each round shall be eliminated ..."
>
> How can we clearly and concisely change that to Bottom-Two Runoff?

My first stab would be: "After each round, of the two candidates with
the fewest votes, the candidate ranked below the other by the most
voters shall be eliminated".

Alternatively "on the most ballots". Or "among the two candidates". Or
"of the two candidates with the fewest votes in that round".

Presumably there has to be some tie-breaking language for the case where
more than one candidate is last or next-to-last. But I suppose there is
some similar language for IRV as is.

If there is no equal-rank or truncation, you can also say "the candidate
ranked below the other by a majority of the voters".

The strategy to turn IRV into BTR-IRV is probably the best one. Woodall
is better than BTR-IRV, and you could turn the method into Woodall by
checking for a CW before a round starts, but then you'd have to define
what a CW means in a way that doesn't confuse people who are unfamiliar
with Condorcet.

Looking again at the language, point (3) is already rather convoluted.
Perhaps it would be better to split up the definition. Something like:

(3) If no candidate receives a majority of first preferences, an instant
runoff re-tabulation shall be performed by the presiding election
officer. The instant runoff re-tabulation shall be conducted in rounds.
In each round, each voter’s ballot shall count as a single vote for
whichever continuing candidate the voter has ranked highest, and
subsidiarily to determine what candidate to eliminate. After each round,
the two candidates with the fewest votes shall be considered for
elimination. Of these two candidates, the candidate ranked below the
other by the most voters shall be eliminated in that round. The counting
in rounds shall continue until only two candidates remain, with the
candidate then receiving the greatest number of votes being elected.

(Maybe also call it something else than "instant runoff re-tabulation"
because it's no longer IRV, but I can't think of a better name at the
moment.)

I'm much less certain about Woodall. See below for something I cooked up.

(1) The ballot shall give voters the option of ranking candidates in
order of preference.
(2) If a candidate receives a majority (over 50 percent) of first
preferences, that candidate is elected.
(3) If no candidate receives a majority of first preferences, an instant
runoff re-tabulation shall be performed by the presiding election
officer. The instant runoff re-tabulation shall be conducted in rounds,
for which the counting shall be conducted according to the following
three points.
(4) If there exists a continuing candidate so that for every other
continuing candidate, the former candidate is ranked ahead of the latter
by a majority of the voters, the former candidate is elected.
(5) If there is no such candidate, each voter’s ballot shall count as a
single vote for whichever continuing candidate the voter has ranked
highest. The candidate with the fewest votes shall be eliminated, which
marks the end of the current round and the beginning of the next.
(6) The counting in rounds shall continue until a candidate is elected
or only one candidate remains, with the remaining candidate then being
elected.
(7) The city council may adopt additional regulations consistent with
this subsection to implement these standards.

(Strictly speaking, the latter half of point 6 is redundant because when
only two candidates remain, the winner beats the loser pairwise and
would be elected by point 4. But a potentially infinite loop looks more
dangerous than a finite one.)

I haven't written legislative language before, but maybe it can serve as
a starting point for others who have.

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

Re: [EM] Burlington VT reconsidering IRV 10 years after IRV failed to elect the Condorcet Winner

Juho Laatu-4
In reply to this post by robert bristow-johnson
My simple thoughts on this:

- You ask: Do you agree that in problematic situations, like what happened in 2009, the result should be different?
- They answer: Yes.
- You say: This is a problem that is fortunately quite easily to fix. The most straight forward way to enhance the method is to use the Bottom-Two Runoff. The losing candidate one of the two candidates with least votes will be eliminated.
- They say: Ok, let's see if that would be our ideal solution.
- You say: Ok, let's start from there.

BR, Juho


> On 03 Dec 2019, at 17:54, robert bristow-johnson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On December 3, 2019 4:03 AM Kristofer Munsterhjelm <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 03/12/2019 07.00, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>>>
>>> i got news from Burlington Vermont regarding ranked-choice voting (after all we went through a decade ago) and i might could use a little bit of help.
>>
>>
>> What are the news from Burlington?
>>
>
> okay, Burlington is pretty liberal.  While there is one Republican in City Council (who also happens to preside over the council and even more coincidently was the Republican candidate for mayor in the 2009 IRV election, gathering the most 1st-choice votes but losing to the Prog candidate in IRV) the Progs in City Council have reintroduced a Charter Change resolution to return to IRV, now they are calling it "RCV" but it is the same Single Transferable Vote procedure used in RCV elections everywhere.  The language of the Charter Change is posted below.
>
> But there was a little pushback from other councilors (and myself) for Burlington to not repeat mistakes from the past, namely that of electing a candidate other than the clearly shown Condorcet Winner.
>
> This is all in a hurry.  In two weeks Council will make the decision whether or not to include the question to the ballot for Town Meeting Day in March 2020.  On Monday Dec 9th, the Charter Change Committee will consider the language of the bill and vote on what shall be brought to the whole Council to include on the ballot.
>
> I want to figure out some good language to change this from regular-old IRV to Bottom-Two Runoff, Single Transferable Vote, BTR-STV .  If someone is good at writing legal language or if this BTR-STV has had legislative language written for it somewhere else, I would like to see it.
>
> The language that needs to be changed, to make this RCV Condorcet-compliant is:
>
> "... The candidate with the fewest votes after each round shall be eliminated ..."
>
> How can we clearly and concisely change that to Bottom-Two Runoff?
>
> --
>
> r b-j                  [hidden email]
>
> "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
>
>
>
>
> All elections of mayor, city councilors and school commissioners shall be by ballot, using a system of ranked choice voting without a separate runoff election. The chief administrative officer shall implement a ranked choice voting protocol according to these guidelines:
> (1) The ballot shall give voters the option of ranking candidates in order of preference.
> (2) If a candidate receives a majority (over 50 percent) of first preferences, that candidate is elected.
> (3) If no candidate receives a majority of first preferences, an instant runoff re-tabulation shall be performed by the presiding election officer. The instant runoff re-tabulation shall be conducted in rounds. In each round, each voter’s ballot shall count as a single vote for whichever continuing candidate the voter has ranked highest. The candidate with the fewest votes after each round shall be eliminated until only two candidates remain, with the candidate then receiving the greatest number of votes being elected.
> (4) The city council may adopt additional regulations consistent with this subsection to implement these standards.
> ----
> 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] Burlington VT reconsidering IRV 10 years after IRV failed to elect the Condorcet Winner

robert bristow-johnson


> On December 3, 2019 5:13 PM Juho Laatu <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>  
> My simple thoughts on this:
>
> - You ask: Do you agree that in problematic situations, like what happened in 2009, the result should be different?
> - They answer: Yes.
> - You say: This is a problem that is fortunately quite easily to fix. The most straight forward way to enhance the method is to use the Bottom-Two Runoff. The losing candidate one of the two candidates with least votes will be eliminated.
> - They say: Ok, let's see if that would be our ideal solution.
> - You say: Ok, let's start from there.
>

Juho, this is **exactly** my strategy.  But there is a little bit of an issue about "let's start from there".  Here is the latest news regarding yesterday's Council meeting and RCV:

 https://vtdigger.org/2019/12/03/burlington-considers-instant-runoff-voting-for-most-city-races/ 

What has happened is that the Progs have "succeeded" in fending off an amendment to take more time and investigate alternatives to the IRV method of RCV.  They want, really badly, to get this on the ballot for this coming Town Meeting Day in March 2020.  The latest that the Council can decide to include this on the ballot is in 13 days.  And in 6 days is when the Charter Change Committee will consider this proposed ballot item, fix any language, and recommend it to the Council on Dec 16.

I am afraid that putting this on the ballot "half-baked", with effectively no change from what we had in 2009 and acknowledging no error from the 2009 election, will result in March in rejection by the majority of voters and will, again, set back voting reform for another decade.  So I want to make a good effort at changing the language from regular-old IRV to BTR-STV.  And hopefully get that change adopted by the Charter Change Committee and sent up to the Council to consider for inclusion on the ballot.  Then we can tell voters that this IRV is different from the 2009 IRV and would have corrected the failure of IRV we had in 2009.

I believe that Schulze is technically the best RCV, but since Schulze and Ranked-Pairs will elect the same candidate when the Smith set is 3 candidates or fewer, my favorite would be RP using margins for a governmental election because its method is easier to understand and encode into legal language that laypersons can read and understand.  Also, we would be able to say to the IRV haters that this RP RCV is not IRV at all.

However, we can't say that about BTR-STV because, after all, it *is* a form of Instant Runoff Voting, but and IRV method that *will* elect the Pairwise Champion (the term that I will use to denote the Condorcet Winner).  But, given the circumstances (that an IRV proposal is in the works right now), I think this is the best action I can hope to take.  I would have to admit that this Condorcet-compliant IRV is still IRV.  The Progs won't mind and other naive RCV supporters won't mind, but the IRV haters, particularly those who hated the IRV winner in 2009 will always hate IRV or any RCV, but I would still rather be promoting an RCV that is *not* IRV (no runoff rounds).

I am taking Kristofer's language suggestions and possibly modifying.  I would like to see language suggestions from others.  Either way, I will post what language I finally will submit to the Charter Change Committee.  They will probably reject my submission, but I will tell them plainly that if they are offering RCV that is no different from the IRV that resulted in the 2009 failure and was repealed by voters the following year, that their proposed charter change will be rejected by the majority of voters on Town Meeting Day.  And this will likely set back voting reform by another decade.

> BR, Juho

and also to you, Juho.  i am appreciative of any help or language or analysis suggestions from you or anyone.


--
 
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] Burlington VT reconsidering IRV 10 years after IRV failed to elect the Condorcet Winner

VoteFair-2
On 12/3/2019 2:56 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
 > ...  I would like to see language suggestions from others. ...

I'm jumping into the middle of this without having time to read about
BTR-STV, so pardon my misunderstandings about what you are attempting.

I suggest considering terminology such as:

"If there is a candidate who is less popular than every one of the other
candidates based on comparing each and every pair of candidates one pair
at a time, eliminate that pairwise-losing candidate."

This approach eliminates the need to mention the concept of a Condorcet
winner.

Also, this approach is not Condorcet compliant because it does not
ALWAYS elect the Condorcet winner, so it cannot be criticized as "a
Condorcet method."

Of course the key word is "if" because sometimes there will not be a
pairwise loser.  Whenever there is not a pairwise loser, your existing
words specify what to do.

Here's a description of a method that repeats this pairwise elimination
process and uses an upside-down version of IRV to resolve
rock-paper-scissors-like cycles:

   https://democracychronicles.org/instant-pairwise-elimination/

I've called it Instant Pairwise Elimination, but the name is not important.

It's the concept of "pairwise counting" that I think is important, and
should be used in election counting methods.

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

Re: [EM] Burlington VT reconsidering IRV 10 years after IRV failed to elect the Condorcet Winner

C.Benham
In reply to this post by robert bristow-johnson
I think that making sure that the voters can strictly rank from the top
however many candidates they wish is more important
than making sure the method elects the voted Condorcet winner.

I think that IRV/RCV  (with one-at-a-time elimination) that meets that
requirement  has the most merit relative to its traction and
comprehensibility.

But if we do want to insist on compliance with the Condorcet criterion,
necessarily at the expense of making the making the method vulnerable to
Burying
strategy and losing compliance with the (popular with IRV supporters)
Later-no-Harm criterion, then I don't like Bottom-Two Runoff.

It would be much better to check before each normal IRV-style
elimination that the candidate you are considering eliminating doesn't
pairwise-beat all the
remaining candidates. If it does the process should stop and that
candidate should win.

That would be a quite good Condorcet method.

Chris Benham


On 4/12/2019 9:26 am, robert bristow-johnson wrote:

>
>> On December 3, 2019 5:13 PM Juho Laatu <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>  
>> My simple thoughts on this:
>>
>> - You ask: Do you agree that in problematic situations, like what happened in 2009, the result should be different?
>> - They answer: Yes.
>> - You say: This is a problem that is fortunately quite easily to fix. The most straight forward way to enhance the method is to use the Bottom-Two Runoff. The losing candidate one of the two candidates with least votes will be eliminated.
>> - They say: Ok, let's see if that would be our ideal solution.
>> - You say: Ok, let's start from there.
>>
> Juho, this is **exactly** my strategy.  But there is a little bit of an issue about "let's start from there".  Here is the latest news regarding yesterday's Council meeting and RCV:
>
>   https://vtdigger.org/2019/12/03/burlington-considers-instant-runoff-voting-for-most-city-races/
>
> What has happened is that the Progs have "succeeded" in fending off an amendment to take more time and investigate alternatives to the IRV method of RCV.  They want, really badly, to get this on the ballot for this coming Town Meeting Day in March 2020.  The latest that the Council can decide to include this on the ballot is in 13 days.  And in 6 days is when the Charter Change Committee will consider this proposed ballot item, fix any language, and recommend it to the Council on Dec 16.
>
> I am afraid that putting this on the ballot "half-baked", with effectively no change from what we had in 2009 and acknowledging no error from the 2009 election, will result in March in rejection by the majority of voters and will, again, set back voting reform for another decade.  So I want to make a good effort at changing the language from regular-old IRV to BTR-STV.  And hopefully get that change adopted by the Charter Change Committee and sent up to the Council to consider for inclusion on the ballot.  Then we can tell voters that this IRV is different from the 2009 IRV and would have corrected the failure of IRV we had in 2009.
>
> I believe that Schulze is technically the best RCV, but since Schulze and Ranked-Pairs will elect the same candidate when the Smith set is 3 candidates or fewer, my favorite would be RP using margins for a governmental election because its method is easier to understand and encode into legal language that laypersons can read and understand.  Also, we would be able to say to the IRV haters that this RP RCV is not IRV at all.
>
> However, we can't say that about BTR-STV because, after all, it *is* a form of Instant Runoff Voting, but and IRV method that *will* elect the Pairwise Champion (the term that I will use to denote the Condorcet Winner).  But, given the circumstances (that an IRV proposal is in the works right now), I think this is the best action I can hope to take.  I would have to admit that this Condorcet-compliant IRV is still IRV.  The Progs won't mind and other naive RCV supporters won't mind, but the IRV haters, particularly those who hated the IRV winner in 2009 will always hate IRV or any RCV, but I would still rather be promoting an RCV that is *not* IRV (no runoff rounds).
>
> I am taking Kristofer's language suggestions and possibly modifying.  I would like to see language suggestions from others.  Either way, I will post what language I finally will submit to the Charter Change Committee.  They will probably reject my submission, but I will tell them plainly that if they are offering RCV that is no different from the IRV that resulted in the 2009 failure and was repealed by voters the following year, that their proposed charter change will be rejected by the majority of voters on Town Meeting Day.  And this will likely set back voting reform by another decade.
>
>> BR, Juho
> and also to you, Juho.  i am appreciative of any help or language or analysis suggestions from you or anyone.
>
>
> --
>  
> 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] Burlington VT reconsidering IRV 10 years after IRV failed to elect the Condorcet Winner

robert bristow-johnson
In reply to this post by Kristofer Munsterhjelm-3

How does this look to you guys?  This is the original language on the existing resolution to implement RCV that is not Condorcet compliant:

________________________________________________________


All elections of mayor, city councilors and school commissioners shall be by ballot, using a system of ranked choice voting without a separate runoff election. The chief administrative officer shall implement a ranked choice voting protocol according to these guidelines:
  (1) The ballot shall give voters the option of ranking candidates in order of preference.
  (2) If a candidate receives a majority (over 50 percent) of first preferences, that candidate is elected.
  (3) If no candidate receives a majority of first preferences, an instant runoff re-tabulation shall be performed by the presiding election officer. The instant runoff re-tabulation shall be conducted in rounds. In each round, each voter’s ballot shall count as a single vote for whichever continuing candidate the voter has ranked highest. The candidate with the fewest votes after each round shall be eliminated until only two candidates remain, with the candidate then receiving the greatest number of votes being elected.
  (4) The city council may adopt additional regulations consistent with this subsection to implement these standards.

________________________________________________________


and here is the original languate modified to implement BTR-STV that is Condorcet compliant:


________________________________________________________


All elections of mayor, city councilors and school commissioners shall be by ballot, using a system of ranked choice voting without a separate runoff election. The chief administrative officer shall implement a ranked choice voting protocol according to these guidelines:
  (1) The ballot shall give voters the option of ranking candidates in order of preference.
  (2) If a candidate receives a majority (over 50 percent) of first preferences, that candidate is elected.
  (3) If no candidate receives a majority of first preferences, an instant runoff re-tabulation shall be performed by the presiding election officer. The instant runoff re-tabulation shall be conducted in sequential rounds. A "remaining candidate" is defined as a candidate that has not been eliminated in any previous round. Initially, no candidate is eliminated and all candidates begin as remaining candidates.
  (4) In each round, each voter’s ballot shall count as a single vote for whichever remaining candidate the voter has ranked highest. The two candidates with the fewest votes in a round, herein designated as "A" and "B", shall be compared in a runoff in which the candidate, A or B, with lesser voter support is eliminated in the same round. If the number of ballots having A ranked higher than B exceeds the number of ballots having B ranked higher than A, then B has lesser voter support, B is eliminated, and A remains for the following round. Likewise, if the number of ballots having B ranked higher than A exceeds the number of ballots having A ranked higher than B, then A has lesser voter support, A is eliminated, and B remains for the following round. In the case that the aforementioned measure of voter support between A and B is tied, then the candidate with fewest votes is eliminated in the same round.
  (5) This runoff re-tabulation, eliminating one candidate each round, is repeated until only two candidates remain, with the candidate then receiving the greatest number of votes being elected.
  (6) The city council may adopt additional regulations consistent with this subsection to implement these standards.

________________________________________________________


Is this good language for BTR-STV?  Can any of you think of a hole in this description?  Can any of you make it better or more concise?

Thank you.

r b-j


> On December 3, 2019 3:44 PM Kristofer Munsterhjelm <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>  
> On 03/12/2019 16.54, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
> >
...

> >
> > I want to figure out some good language to change this from regular-old IRV to Bottom-Two Runoff, Single Transferable Vote, BTR-STV .  If someone is good at writing legal language or if this BTR-STV has had legislative language written for it somewhere else, I would like to see it.
> >
> > The language that needs to be changed, to make this RCV Condorcet-compliant is:
> >
> > "... The candidate with the fewest votes after each round shall be eliminated ..."
> >
> > How can we clearly and concisely change that to Bottom-Two Runoff?
>
> My first stab would be: "After each round, of the two candidates with
> the fewest votes, the candidate ranked below the other by the most
> voters shall be eliminated".
>
> Alternatively "on the most ballots". Or "among the two candidates". Or
> "of the two candidates with the fewest votes in that round".
>
> Presumably there has to be some tie-breaking language for the case where
> more than one candidate is last or next-to-last. But I suppose there is
> some similar language for IRV as is.
>
> If there is no equal-rank or truncation, you can also say "the candidate
> ranked below the other by a majority of the voters".
>
> The strategy to turn IRV into BTR-IRV is probably the best one. Woodall
> is better than BTR-IRV, and you could turn the method into Woodall by
> checking for a CW before a round starts, but then you'd have to define
> what a CW means in a way that doesn't confuse people who are unfamiliar
> with Condorcet.
>
> Looking again at the language, point (3) is already rather convoluted.
> Perhaps it would be better to split up the definition. Something like:
>
> (3) If no candidate receives a majority of first preferences, an instant
> runoff re-tabulation shall be performed by the presiding election
> officer. The instant runoff re-tabulation shall be conducted in rounds.
> In each round, each voter’s ballot shall count as a single vote for
> whichever continuing candidate the voter has ranked highest, and
> subsidiarily to determine what candidate to eliminate. After each round,
> the two candidates with the fewest votes shall be considered for
> elimination. Of these two candidates, the candidate ranked below the
> other by the most voters shall be eliminated in that round. The counting
> in rounds shall continue until only two candidates remain, with the
> candidate then receiving the greatest number of votes being elected.
>
> (Maybe also call it something else than "instant runoff re-tabulation"
> because it's no longer IRV, but I can't think of a better name at the
> moment.)
>
> I'm much less certain about Woodall. See below for something I cooked up.
>
> (1) The ballot shall give voters the option of ranking candidates in
> order of preference.
> (2) If a candidate receives a majority (over 50 percent) of first
> preferences, that candidate is elected.
> (3) If no candidate receives a majority of first preferences, an instant
> runoff re-tabulation shall be performed by the presiding election
> officer. The instant runoff re-tabulation shall be conducted in rounds,
> for which the counting shall be conducted according to the following
> three points.
> (4) If there exists a continuing candidate so that for every other
> continuing candidate, the former candidate is ranked ahead of the latter
> by a majority of the voters, the former candidate is elected.
> (5) If there is no such candidate, each voter’s ballot shall count as a
> single vote for whichever continuing candidate the voter has ranked
> highest. The candidate with the fewest votes shall be eliminated, which
> marks the end of the current round and the beginning of the next.
> (6) The counting in rounds shall continue until a candidate is elected
> or only one candidate remains, with the remaining candidate then being
> elected.
> (7) The city council may adopt additional regulations consistent with
> this subsection to implement these standards.
>
> (Strictly speaking, the latter half of point 6 is redundant because when
> only two candidates remain, the winner beats the loser pairwise and
> would be elected by point 4. But a potentially infinite loop looks more
> dangerous than a finite one.)
>
> I haven't written legislative language before, but maybe it can serve as
> a starting point for others who have.
>
> -km

--

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] Burlington VT reconsidering IRV 10 years after IRV failed to elect the Condorcet Winner

Richard Lung

The reason for all the controversy is the limitations of IRV. And
political expedience over-looks scientific principle. From the latter
point of view, the limitations are that single vacancies struggle to
represent even half the voters. That's what you are all arguing about:
how to do even that much. The other IRV limitation is that eliminations
discard preferential information germane to the result.
The obvious answer is STV, which elects the first preferences, nearly
all of them with enough seats per district. That is the acid test,
despite the residual short-comings of traditional STV or Meek method. (I
have worked out how to further empower the transferable voting method:
my oft-mentioned FAB STV.)
A trouble with the US "choice voting" reform campaign is that IRV is not
choice voting, it is, as the French say "faux pas de mieux" (for want of
something better).

Richard L


On 04/12/2019 08:18, robert bristow-johnson wrote:

> How does this look to you guys?  This is the original language on the existing resolution to implement RCV that is not Condorcet compliant:
>
> ________________________________________________________
>
>
> All elections of mayor, city councilors and school commissioners shall be by ballot, using a system of ranked choice voting without a separate runoff election. The chief administrative officer shall implement a ranked choice voting protocol according to these guidelines:
>    (1) The ballot shall give voters the option of ranking candidates in order of preference.
>    (2) If a candidate receives a majority (over 50 percent) of first preferences, that candidate is elected.
>    (3) If no candidate receives a majority of first preferences, an instant runoff re-tabulation shall be performed by the presiding election officer. The instant runoff re-tabulation shall be conducted in rounds. In each round, each voter’s ballot shall count as a single vote for whichever continuing candidate the voter has ranked highest. The candidate with the fewest votes after each round shall be eliminated until only two candidates remain, with the candidate then receiving the greatest number of votes being elected.
>    (4) The city council may adopt additional regulations consistent with this subsection to implement these standards.
>
> ________________________________________________________
>
>
> and here is the original languate modified to implement BTR-STV that is Condorcet compliant:
>
>
> ________________________________________________________
>
>
> All elections of mayor, city councilors and school commissioners shall be by ballot, using a system of ranked choice voting without a separate runoff election. The chief administrative officer shall implement a ranked choice voting protocol according to these guidelines:
>    (1) The ballot shall give voters the option of ranking candidates in order of preference.
>    (2) If a candidate receives a majority (over 50 percent) of first preferences, that candidate is elected.
>    (3) If no candidate receives a majority of first preferences, an instant runoff re-tabulation shall be performed by the presiding election officer. The instant runoff re-tabulation shall be conducted in sequential rounds. A "remaining candidate" is defined as a candidate that has not been eliminated in any previous round. Initially, no candidate is eliminated and all candidates begin as remaining candidates.
>    (4) In each round, each voter’s ballot shall count as a single vote for whichever remaining candidate the voter has ranked highest. The two candidates with the fewest votes in a round, herein designated as "A" and "B", shall be compared in a runoff in which the candidate, A or B, with lesser voter support is eliminated in the same round. If the number of ballots having A ranked higher than B exceeds the number of ballots having B ranked higher than A, then B has lesser voter support, B is eliminated, and A remains for the following round. Likewise, if the number of ballots having B ranked higher than A exceeds the number of ballots having A ranked higher than B, then A has lesser voter support, A is eliminated, and B remains for the following round. In the case that the aforementioned measure of voter support between A and B is tied, then the candidate with fewest votes is eliminated in the same round.
>    (5) This runoff re-tabulation, eliminating one candidate each round, is repeated until only two candidates remain, with the candidate then receiving the greatest number of votes being elected.
>    (6) The city council may adopt additional regulations consistent with this subsection to implement these standards.
>
> ________________________________________________________
>
>
> Is this good language for BTR-STV?  Can any of you think of a hole in this description?  Can any of you make it better or more concise?
>
> Thank you.
>
> r b-j
>
>
>> On December 3, 2019 3:44 PM Kristofer Munsterhjelm <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>  
>> On 03/12/2019 16.54, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
> ...
>>> I want to figure out some good language to change this from regular-old IRV to Bottom-Two Runoff, Single Transferable Vote, BTR-STV .  If someone is good at writing legal language or if this BTR-STV has had legislative language written for it somewhere else, I would like to see it.
>>>
>>> The language that needs to be changed, to make this RCV Condorcet-compliant is:
>>>
>>> "... The candidate with the fewest votes after each round shall be eliminated ..."
>>>
>>> How can we clearly and concisely change that to Bottom-Two Runoff?
>> My first stab would be: "After each round, of the two candidates with
>> the fewest votes, the candidate ranked below the other by the most
>> voters shall be eliminated".
>>
>> Alternatively "on the most ballots". Or "among the two candidates". Or
>> "of the two candidates with the fewest votes in that round".
>>
>> Presumably there has to be some tie-breaking language for the case where
>> more than one candidate is last or next-to-last. But I suppose there is
>> some similar language for IRV as is.
>>
>> If there is no equal-rank or truncation, you can also say "the candidate
>> ranked below the other by a majority of the voters".
>>
>> The strategy to turn IRV into BTR-IRV is probably the best one. Woodall
>> is better than BTR-IRV, and you could turn the method into Woodall by
>> checking for a CW before a round starts, but then you'd have to define
>> what a CW means in a way that doesn't confuse people who are unfamiliar
>> with Condorcet.
>>
>> Looking again at the language, point (3) is already rather convoluted.
>> Perhaps it would be better to split up the definition. Something like:
>>
>> (3) If no candidate receives a majority of first preferences, an instant
>> runoff re-tabulation shall be performed by the presiding election
>> officer. The instant runoff re-tabulation shall be conducted in rounds.
>> In each round, each voter’s ballot shall count as a single vote for
>> whichever continuing candidate the voter has ranked highest, and
>> subsidiarily to determine what candidate to eliminate. After each round,
>> the two candidates with the fewest votes shall be considered for
>> elimination. Of these two candidates, the candidate ranked below the
>> other by the most voters shall be eliminated in that round. The counting
>> in rounds shall continue until only two candidates remain, with the
>> candidate then receiving the greatest number of votes being elected.
>>
>> (Maybe also call it something else than "instant runoff re-tabulation"
>> because it's no longer IRV, but I can't think of a better name at the
>> moment.)
>>
>> I'm much less certain about Woodall. See below for something I cooked up.
>>
>> (1) The ballot shall give voters the option of ranking candidates in
>> order of preference.
>> (2) If a candidate receives a majority (over 50 percent) of first
>> preferences, that candidate is elected.
>> (3) If no candidate receives a majority of first preferences, an instant
>> runoff re-tabulation shall be performed by the presiding election
>> officer. The instant runoff re-tabulation shall be conducted in rounds,
>> for which the counting shall be conducted according to the following
>> three points.
>> (4) If there exists a continuing candidate so that for every other
>> continuing candidate, the former candidate is ranked ahead of the latter
>> by a majority of the voters, the former candidate is elected.
>> (5) If there is no such candidate, each voter’s ballot shall count as a
>> single vote for whichever continuing candidate the voter has ranked
>> highest. The candidate with the fewest votes shall be eliminated, which
>> marks the end of the current round and the beginning of the next.
>> (6) The counting in rounds shall continue until a candidate is elected
>> or only one candidate remains, with the remaining candidate then being
>> elected.
>> (7) The city council may adopt additional regulations consistent with
>> this subsection to implement these standards.
>>
>> (Strictly speaking, the latter half of point 6 is redundant because when
>> only two candidates remain, the winner beats the loser pairwise and
>> would be elected by point 4. But a potentially infinite loop looks more
>> dangerous than a finite one.)
>>
>> I haven't written legislative language before, but maybe it can serve as
>> a starting point for others who have.
>>
>> -km
> --
>
> 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] Burlington VT reconsidering IRV 10 years after IRV failed to elect the Condorcet Winner

Markus Schulze-3
In reply to this post by robert bristow-johnson
Dear Robert Bristow-Johnson,

the best possible election method according to the
underlying heuristic of instant-runoff voting will
always be instant-runoff voting. Therefore, I don't
think that any supporter of instant-runoff voting
will be convinced by a hybrid of Condorcet voting
and instant-runoff voting.

Bottom-two runoff violates monotonicity and reversal
symmetry. Therefore, when you promote bottom-two
runoff, you cannot use these criteria against
instant-runoff voting.

Bottom-two runoff violates independence of clones
while instant-runoff voting satisfies independence
of clones. Therefore, this criterion will be used
against bottom-two runoff.

When you promote bottom-two runoff and fail to
convince the audience about the importance of the
Condorcet criterion, you don't have any arguments
anymore against instant-runoff.

I strongly recommend that you should promote the
Schulze method because of the following reasons:

(1) The Schulze method satisfies not only the
Condorcet criterion, but also monotonicity,
reversal symmetry, independence of clones and many
other criteria. Therefore, the Schulze method is a
very good method even when there is no Condorcet
winner or when you fail to convince the audience
about the importance of the Condorcet criterion.

(2) The Schulze method is currently the most
wide-spread Condorcet method.

(3) The Schulze method has been published in an
important peer-reviewed journal:

    Markus Schulze, "A new monotonic, clone-independent,
    reversal symmetric, and Condorcet-consistent
    single-winner election method", Social Choice and
    Welfare, volume 36, issue 2, pages 267-303, 2011,
    DOI: 10.1007/s00355-010-0475-4

Here are some useful links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method

https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/ERRE/Brief/BR8397842/br-external/SchulzeMarkus-e.pdf

Markus Schulze

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

Re: [EM] Burlington VT reconsidering IRV 10 years after IRV failed to elect the Condorcet Winner

VoteFair-2
In reply to this post by robert bristow-johnson
On 12/4/2019 12:18 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
 > How does this look to you guys?  ...

Item 4 needs some serious surgery.  It needs to be split into two or
even three parts, which I'll refer to here as 4a and 4b and 4c.

Notice that there is no provision for how to count a ballot on which the
voter ranks more than one candidate at the same preference level!  To
fix this serious unfairness I suggest the following wording for 4a
(which uses the same first sentence):

4a: In each round, each voter’s ballot shall count as a single vote for
whichever remaining candidate the voter has ranked highest. If a voter
ranks two or more remaining candidates at the same currently-highest
preference level then that single vote shall be split into equal-weight
two-digit decimal numbers that add up to no more than a single vote.
Specifically if a ballot ranks three remaining candidates at the same
currently-highest preference level then each of those three candidates
will each receive 0.33 portion of a vote during the current round.

(Grammar: "currently-highest" would not normally use a hyphen because of
the "ly" ending, but including the hyphen makes the meaning less
ambiguous in this legal usage.)

The remaining portion of item four could be used for item 4b, BUT please
consider the following fairer wordings for items 4b and 4c, which might
be as easy to understand as the existing wording:

4b: In each elimination round each remaining candidate is compared to
each other remaining candidate one pair at a time to determine whether
there is a "pairwise-losing" candidate that is ranked lower on more than
half the ballots in each and every pairwise comparison. If there is a
pairwise-losing candidate who loses all its pairwise contests against
all the other remaining candidates then that candidate is eliminated.

4c: If an elimination round has no pairwise-losing candidate then the
candidate who receives the fewest votes is eliminated in that round. If
there is a tie for fewest votes and the tie affects which candidate can
win, then a recount shall be done and if the recount also results in a
tie that affects who wins then a court shall determine how to resolve
the tie.

The longer wording for 4c is needed because the current wording fails to
explain how to resolve an IRV tie.

The method described above is NOT Condorcet compliant, but it is so
close to being Condorcet compliant that any exception would also involve
bigger unfairness issues (such as a very small turnout).

Regardless of whether you can use the recommended pairwise wording, at
least make sure that the wording explains what to do when a voter ranks
more than one candidate at the same preference level.  Note that tossing
out that ballot is NOT a valid option!  If someone in your group insists
that it should be tossed out, then at least stop ignoring the ballot
when there is a round in which only one "remaining" candidate is ranked
at that same preference level.

Good luck!  You're doing great work!!!

Richard Fobes


On 12/4/2019 12:18 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:

>
> How does this look to you guys?  This is the original language on the existing resolution to implement RCV that is not Condorcet compliant:
>
> ________________________________________________________
>
>
> All elections of mayor, city councilors and school commissioners shall be by ballot, using a system of ranked choice voting without a separate runoff election. The chief administrative officer shall implement a ranked choice voting protocol according to these guidelines:
>   (1) The ballot shall give voters the option of ranking candidates in order of preference.
>   (2) If a candidate receives a majority (over 50 percent) of first preferences, that candidate is elected.
>   (3) If no candidate receives a majority of first preferences, an instant runoff re-tabulation shall be performed by the presiding election officer. The instant runoff re-tabulation shall be conducted in rounds. In each round, each voter’s ballot shall count as a single vote for whichever continuing candidate the voter has ranked highest. The candidate with the fewest votes after each round shall be eliminated until only two candidates remain, with the candidate then receiving the greatest number of votes being elected.
>   (4) The city council may adopt additional regulations consistent with this subsection to implement these standards.
>
> ________________________________________________________
>
>
> and here is the original languate modified to implement BTR-STV that is Condorcet compliant:
>
>
> ________________________________________________________
>
>
> All elections of mayor, city councilors and school commissioners shall be by ballot, using a system of ranked choice voting without a separate runoff election. The chief administrative officer shall implement a ranked choice voting protocol according to these guidelines:
>   (1) The ballot shall give voters the option of ranking candidates in order of preference.
>   (2) If a candidate receives a majority (over 50 percent) of first preferences, that candidate is elected.
>   (3) If no candidate receives a majority of first preferences, an instant runoff re-tabulation shall be performed by the presiding election officer. The instant runoff re-tabulation shall be conducted in sequential rounds. A "remaining candidate" is defined as a candidate that has not been eliminated in any previous round. Initially, no candidate is eliminated and all candidates begin as remaining candidates.
>   (4) In each round, each voter’s ballot shall count as a single vote for whichever remaining candidate the voter has ranked highest. The two candidates with the fewest votes in a round, herein designated as "A" and "B", shall be compared in a runoff in which the candidate, A or B, with lesser voter support is eliminated in the same round. If the number of ballots having A ranked higher than B exceeds the number of ballots having B ranked higher than A, then B has lesser voter support, B is eliminated, and A remains for the following round. Likewise, if the number of ballots having B ranked higher than A exceeds the number of ballots having A ranked higher than B, then A has lesser voter support, A is eliminated, and B remains for the following round. In the case that the aforementioned measure of voter support between A and B is tied, then the candidate with fewest votes is eliminated in the same round.
>   (5) This runoff re-tabulation, eliminating one candidate each round, is repeated until only two candidates remain, with the candidate then receiving the greatest number of votes being elected.
>   (6) The city council may adopt additional regulations consistent with this subsection to implement these standards.
>
> ________________________________________________________
>
>
> Is this good language for BTR-STV?  Can any of you think of a hole in this description?  Can any of you make it better or more concise?
>
> Thank you.
>
> r b-j
>
>
>> On December 3, 2019 3:44 PM Kristofer Munsterhjelm <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 03/12/2019 16.54, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>>>
> ...
>>>
>>> I want to figure out some good language to change this from regular-old IRV to Bottom-Two Runoff, Single Transferable Vote, BTR-STV .  If someone is good at writing legal language or if this BTR-STV has had legislative language written for it somewhere else, I would like to see it.
>>>
>>> The language that needs to be changed, to make this RCV Condorcet-compliant is:
>>>
>>> "... The candidate with the fewest votes after each round shall be eliminated ..."
>>>
>>> How can we clearly and concisely change that to Bottom-Two Runoff?
>>
>> My first stab would be: "After each round, of the two candidates with
>> the fewest votes, the candidate ranked below the other by the most
>> voters shall be eliminated".
>>
>> Alternatively "on the most ballots". Or "among the two candidates". Or
>> "of the two candidates with the fewest votes in that round".
>>
>> Presumably there has to be some tie-breaking language for the case where
>> more than one candidate is last or next-to-last. But I suppose there is
>> some similar language for IRV as is.
>>
>> If there is no equal-rank or truncation, you can also say "the candidate
>> ranked below the other by a majority of the voters".
>>
>> The strategy to turn IRV into BTR-IRV is probably the best one. Woodall
>> is better than BTR-IRV, and you could turn the method into Woodall by
>> checking for a CW before a round starts, but then you'd have to define
>> what a CW means in a way that doesn't confuse people who are unfamiliar
>> with Condorcet.
>>
>> Looking again at the language, point (3) is already rather convoluted.
>> Perhaps it would be better to split up the definition. Something like:
>>
>> (3) If no candidate receives a majority of first preferences, an instant
>> runoff re-tabulation shall be performed by the presiding election
>> officer. The instant runoff re-tabulation shall be conducted in rounds.
>> In each round, each voter’s ballot shall count as a single vote for
>> whichever continuing candidate the voter has ranked highest, and
>> subsidiarily to determine what candidate to eliminate. After each round,
>> the two candidates with the fewest votes shall be considered for
>> elimination. Of these two candidates, the candidate ranked below the
>> other by the most voters shall be eliminated in that round. The counting
>> in rounds shall continue until only two candidates remain, with the
>> candidate then receiving the greatest number of votes being elected.
>>
>> (Maybe also call it something else than "instant runoff re-tabulation"
>> because it's no longer IRV, but I can't think of a better name at the
>> moment.)
>>
>> I'm much less certain about Woodall. See below for something I cooked up.
>>
>> (1) The ballot shall give voters the option of ranking candidates in
>> order of preference.
>> (2) If a candidate receives a majority (over 50 percent) of first
>> preferences, that candidate is elected.
>> (3) If no candidate receives a majority of first preferences, an instant
>> runoff re-tabulation shall be performed by the presiding election
>> officer. The instant runoff re-tabulation shall be conducted in rounds,
>> for which the counting shall be conducted according to the following
>> three points.
>> (4) If there exists a continuing candidate so that for every other
>> continuing candidate, the former candidate is ranked ahead of the latter
>> by a majority of the voters, the former candidate is elected.
>> (5) If there is no such candidate, each voter’s ballot shall count as a
>> single vote for whichever continuing candidate the voter has ranked
>> highest. The candidate with the fewest votes shall be eliminated, which
>> marks the end of the current round and the beginning of the next.
>> (6) The counting in rounds shall continue until a candidate is elected
>> or only one candidate remains, with the remaining candidate then being
>> elected.
>> (7) The city council may adopt additional regulations consistent with
>> this subsection to implement these standards.
>>
>> (Strictly speaking, the latter half of point 6 is redundant because when
>> only two candidates remain, the winner beats the loser pairwise and
>> would be elected by point 4. But a potentially infinite loop looks more
>> dangerous than a finite one.)
>>
>> I haven't written legislative language before, but maybe it can serve as
>> a starting point for others who have.
>>
>> -km
>
> --
>
> 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] Burlington VT reconsidering IRV 10 years after IRV failed to elect the Condorcet Winner

Kristofer Munsterhjelm-3
In reply to this post by Markus Schulze-3
On 04/12/2019 21.06, Markus Schulze wrote:
> Dear Robert Bristow-Johnson,
>
> the best possible election method according to the
> underlying heuristic of instant-runoff voting will
> always be instant-runoff voting. Therefore, I don't
> think that any supporter of instant-runoff voting
> will be convinced by a hybrid of Condorcet voting
> and instant-runoff voting.

I think the point is to convince people who support IRV but also
recognize the failure of Burlington 2009 as genuine. From such a
position, it makes sense to advocate for a small change that fixes the
problem of Condorcet noncompliance, instead of replacing IRV with Schulze.

In the category of smaller changes, I would prefer Benham (which I got
confused with Woodall earlier), but even that might be too large a
change (as I said in my initial mail to Robert).

Does Benham pass independence of clones?

On a longer term, I agree that Schulze is better than Woodall or Benham
(perhaps with the exception if the voters are very strategic), but it
doesn't seem Robert has the luxury of going for one of the advanced
Condorcet methods.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [EM] Burlington VT reconsidering IRV 10 years after IRV failed to elect the Condorcet Winner

robert bristow-johnson
In reply to this post by Markus Schulze-3
Lotsa people to respond to.  I feel I must begin with Markus because, as a signal processing algorithmist, I have so much respect for Markus and for the Schulze method.

I think I understand the Schulze beatpath method and agree with the consensus of the geeks that, technically, it is simply the best currently-known RCV method.  Most immune to all of these voting strategies.

But I consider cycles to be an extremely rare outcome of any Condorcet-compliant ranked choice system.  And, while it's uncommon (perhaps happened only with Burlington a decade ago) for an STV or Hare or whoever IRV to not elect the Condorcet winner, we found out that it can happen at least once.  Appears to be the only RCV election held by a government that did not elect the Condorcet winner, but my concern is that a voting system that does not always elect the Condorcet winner may become law again in the very city where this IRV failure occurred.

If I had my druthers, I would perhaps plug Ranked Pairs because RP will always elect the same winner as Schulze in the case of a Smith set of 3 or less.  A cycle in a governmental election will be rare, but a cycle involving more than 3 candidates happening in a governmental election is, I think, virtually astronomically unlikely.  Ranked Pairs is, for me, so much easier to describe than beatpaths. Markus, to be totally honest with you, I just don't think that Schulze has an ice-cube's chance in getting adopted for a governmental election. But maybe another, simpler-to-describe Condorcet-compliant method can.

So if I had my druthers, it would not be BTR-STV.  But here I am in Burlington Vermont of all places.  At least in this town, we should be aware of how election reform was set back a generation (assuming it takes another decade to finally get RCV to return to this 3-party town) when this IRV hiccup occurred a decade ago.  Now the Progs are actively trying to get the same-old IRV, repackaged as "RCV", but no different than what failed us in 2009.  They have already submitted language for how the question will appear on the ballot.  They sorta left this to the last minute to try to punch it through without argument to get on the ballot.  The city council must make the inclusion decision in 12 days. If they do not put the question on the ballot, it will delay the decision for a year, but charter change is also state law, so it will take another year to get enacted.  And they want this in place for the next mayoral election.  That's why the current push on this legislation.

My only hope and my only intention is to try to persuade some skeptical people in the Vermont Progressive Party that their submitted language can be changed without breaking RCV.  I know they will come back and say my language is too complicated and theirs is simpler.  I will tell them that theirs is simpler and wrong and point out exactly why in what happened in 2009 (I can post that letter to the list, if people are interested in how I do politiking).  But I want to show them language that is the least amount of change from their language, but will result in a Condorcet-compliant method.

I will feel like I succeeded and gained something if **any** Condorcet-compliant RCV method is adopted, but if they don't change the language, I will hold my nose and still support the old, crappy IRV, if that is what gets on the ballot.  That would be better than electing Mayor 41% and that is what we are potentially in danger of now.

So I can't have Schulze, I can't have Tideman, I can't have FAB-STV (and I don't think that Richard's 4a, 4b, 4c is an improvement), I can't have Instant Pairwise Elimination.  I can't expect to, in 5 days, walk into the room where the Charter Change Committee meets and tell them to totally replace their entire language with something completely different (except for the ranked ballot).  The best I can hope for is language that changes how the candidate is eliminated in STV, so that the Condorcet winner is never eliminated.  That's what BTR-STV is good for; it is a political increment (when RCV becomes Condorcet-compliant) and sometimes increments in reform is all we can hope for.

So, for reasons of political practicality, it's gotta be BTR-STV or it goes back to Hare STV.  And that will also be a fight.  RCV might lose in either case and we continue with FPTP with 40% minimum.  But also a bad outcome would be if the same IRV was returned to statute and we had another failure like we had in 2009.  Then voting reform will be set back for a lot more than a generation.  At least if we can get an IRV that is Condorcized, we won't have a repeat of 2009 and the repeal that happened the year after.

So the only thing that helps is good, concise language for BTR-STV that retains the form of the original language that I posted, has one part that is different, and I get to defend that one part that is different.  That's all I can get away with.

Thanks, y'all for your attention and comments.  So far, I am sticking with my language, but I can be convinced that some other is better, if the suggestion comes from understanding what political and time constraints I have at the moment.

bestest,

robert

> On December 4, 2019 3:06 PM Markus Schulze <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>  
> Dear Robert Bristow-Johnson,
>
> the best possible election method according to the
> underlying heuristic of instant-runoff voting will
> always be instant-runoff voting. Therefore, I don't
> think that any supporter of instant-runoff voting
> will be convinced by a hybrid of Condorcet voting
> and instant-runoff voting.
>
> Bottom-two runoff violates monotonicity and reversal
> symmetry. Therefore, when you promote bottom-two
> runoff, you cannot use these criteria against
> instant-runoff voting.
>
> Bottom-two runoff violates independence of clones
> while instant-runoff voting satisfies independence
> of clones. Therefore, this criterion will be used
> against bottom-two runoff.
>
> When you promote bottom-two runoff and fail to
> convince the audience about the importance of the
> Condorcet criterion, you don't have any arguments
> anymore against instant-runoff.
>
> I strongly recommend that you should promote the
> Schulze method because of the following reasons:
>
> (1) The Schulze method satisfies not only the
> Condorcet criterion, but also monotonicity,
> reversal symmetry, independence of clones and many
> other criteria. Therefore, the Schulze method is a
> very good method even when there is no Condorcet
> winner or when you fail to convince the audience
> about the importance of the Condorcet criterion.
>
> (2) The Schulze method is currently the most
> wide-spread Condorcet method.
>
> (3) The Schulze method has been published in an
> important peer-reviewed journal:
>
>     Markus Schulze, "A new monotonic, clone-independent,
>     reversal symmetric, and Condorcet-consistent
>     single-winner election method", Social Choice and
>     Welfare, volume 36, issue 2, pages 267-303, 2011,
>     DOI: 10.1007/s00355-010-0475-4
>
> Here are some useful links:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method
>
> https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/ERRE/Brief/BR8397842/br-external/SchulzeMarkus-e.pdf
>
> Markus Schulze
>
> ----
> 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] Burlington VT reconsidering IRV 10 years after IRV failed to elect the Condorcet Winner

C.Benham
In reply to this post by Kristofer Munsterhjelm-3
> Does Benham pass independence of clones?
Yes.

> On a longer term, I agree that Schulze is better than Woodall or Benham
> (perhaps with the exception if the voters are very strategic), but it
> doesn't seem Robert has the luxury of going for one of the advanced
> Condorcet methods.

Benham  is more resistant to Burial than Schulze.   A candidate who is
top-ranked on more
than a third of the ballots can't be successfully Buried.

Say sincere is

43: A
03: A>B
44: B  (or B>A)
10: C

A is the sincere CW:  A>B 46-44,  A>C 46-10  (or 90-10).

With the ballots cast thus all Condorcet methods and also IRV elect A.

But say the B supporters Bury against A:

43: A
03: A>B
44: B>C (sincere is B or B>A)
10: C

Now A>B 46-44,    B>C 47-10,      C>A 54-46.

Now Schulze  (or Ranked Pairs or Smith//MinMax) using either the
normally advocated Winning Votes
or Margins reward the strategists by electing B.  I think Losing Votes
(especially if we don't allow above-bottom
equal-ranking) is much better and it still elects A.

Benham in this example elects the sincere CW.  It just sees that C has
the fewest first-preference votes and is pairwise
defeated (by B) and so eliminates C and elects A.

Chris Benham


On 5/12/2019 10:04 am, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:

> On 04/12/2019 21.06, Markus Schulze wrote:
>> Dear Robert Bristow-Johnson,
>>
>> the best possible election method according to the
>> underlying heuristic of instant-runoff voting will
>> always be instant-runoff voting. Therefore, I don't
>> think that any supporter of instant-runoff voting
>> will be convinced by a hybrid of Condorcet voting
>> and instant-runoff voting.
> I think the point is to convince people who support IRV but also
> recognize the failure of Burlington 2009 as genuine. From such a
> position, it makes sense to advocate for a small change that fixes the
> problem of Condorcet noncompliance, instead of replacing IRV with Schulze.
>
> In the category of smaller changes, I would prefer Benham (which I got
> confused with Woodall earlier), but even that might be too large a
> change (as I said in my initial mail to Robert).
>
> Does Benham pass independence of clones?
>
> On a longer term, I agree that Schulze is better than Woodall or Benham
> (perhaps with the exception if the voters are very strategic), but it
> doesn't seem Robert has the luxury of going for one of the advanced
> Condorcet methods.
> ----
> 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] Burlington VT reconsidering IRV 10 years after IRV failed to elect the Condorcet Winner

Juho Laatu-4
In reply to this post by robert bristow-johnson
Ok, I guess you need an easy to understand and clear (to make it acceptable in short time) alternative proposal that would address the problems of 2009. Here's one more possible wording (and resulting method) in addition to the already presented wordings and methods. It basically adds one more criterion in section (3). I however had to modify and rearrange the text quite a bit to fit that criterion (more or less) nicely in. Text in square brackets might or might not be included. You know better how much text is needed to make the proposal easy to understand.

(3) If no candidate receives a majority of first preferences, an instant runoff re-tabulation shall be performed by the presiding election officer. The instant runoff re-tabulation shall be conducted in rounds. In each round, if one of the continuing candidates is preferred [in the ranked ballots] over any other continuing candidate [more often than the other way around] [, when that candidate is compared to every other continuing candidate one by one], then that candidate will be elected. If there is no such candidate, each voter’s ballot shall count as a single vote for whichever continuing candidate the voter has ranked highest, and the candidate with the fewest votes shall be eliminated.

BR, Juho


> On 04 Dec 2019, at 00:56, robert bristow-johnson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On December 3, 2019 5:13 PM Juho Laatu <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> My simple thoughts on this:
>>
>> - You ask: Do you agree that in problematic situations, like what happened in 2009, the result should be different?
>> - They answer: Yes.
>> - You say: This is a problem that is fortunately quite easily to fix. The most straight forward way to enhance the method is to use the Bottom-Two Runoff. The losing candidate one of the two candidates with least votes will be eliminated.
>> - They say: Ok, let's see if that would be our ideal solution.
>> - You say: Ok, let's start from there.
>>
>
> Juho, this is **exactly** my strategy.  But there is a little bit of an issue about "let's start from there".  Here is the latest news regarding yesterday's Council meeting and RCV:
>
> https://vtdigger.org/2019/12/03/burlington-considers-instant-runoff-voting-for-most-city-races/ 
>
> What has happened is that the Progs have "succeeded" in fending off an amendment to take more time and investigate alternatives to the IRV method of RCV.  They want, really badly, to get this on the ballot for this coming Town Meeting Day in March 2020.  The latest that the Council can decide to include this on the ballot is in 13 days.  And in 6 days is when the Charter Change Committee will consider this proposed ballot item, fix any language, and recommend it to the Council on Dec 16.
>
> I am afraid that putting this on the ballot "half-baked", with effectively no change from what we had in 2009 and acknowledging no error from the 2009 election, will result in March in rejection by the majority of voters and will, again, set back voting reform for another decade.  So I want to make a good effort at changing the language from regular-old IRV to BTR-STV.  And hopefully get that change adopted by the Charter Change Committee and sent up to the Council to consider for inclusion on the ballot.  Then we can tell voters that this IRV is different from the 2009 IRV and would have corrected the failure of IRV we had in 2009.
>
> I believe that Schulze is technically the best RCV, but since Schulze and Ranked-Pairs will elect the same candidate when the Smith set is 3 candidates or fewer, my favorite would be RP using margins for a governmental election because its method is easier to understand and encode into legal language that laypersons can read and understand.  Also, we would be able to say to the IRV haters that this RP RCV is not IRV at all.
>
> However, we can't say that about BTR-STV because, after all, it *is* a form of Instant Runoff Voting, but and IRV method that *will* elect the Pairwise Champion (the term that I will use to denote the Condorcet Winner).  But, given the circumstances (that an IRV proposal is in the works right now), I think this is the best action I can hope to take.  I would have to admit that this Condorcet-compliant IRV is still IRV.  The Progs won't mind and other naive RCV supporters won't mind, but the IRV haters, particularly those who hated the IRV winner in 2009 will always hate IRV or any RCV, but I would still rather be promoting an RCV that is *not* IRV (no runoff rounds).
>
> I am taking Kristofer's language suggestions and possibly modifying.  I would like to see language suggestions from others.  Either way, I will post what language I finally will submit to the Charter Change Committee.  They will probably reject my submission, but I will tell them plainly that if they are offering RCV that is no different from the IRV that resulted in the 2009 failure and was repealed by voters the following year, that their proposed charter change will be rejected by the majority of voters on Town Meeting Day.  And this will likely set back voting reform by another decade.
>
>> BR, Juho
>
> and also to you, Juho.  i am appreciative of any help or language or analysis suggestions from you or anyone.
>
>
> --
>
> 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] Burlington VT reconsidering IRV 10 years after IRV failed to elect the Condorcet Winner

robert bristow-johnson


> On December 4, 2019 9:50 PM Juho Laatu <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> (3) If no candidate receives a majority of first preferences, an instant runoff re-tabulation shall be performed by the presiding election officer. The instant runoff re-tabulation shall be conducted in rounds. In each round, if one of the continuing candidates is preferred [in the ranked ballots] over any other continuing candidate [more often than the other way around] [, when that candidate is compared to every other continuing candidate one by one], then that candidate will be elected. If there is no such candidate, each voter’s ballot shall count as a single vote for whichever continuing candidate the voter has ranked highest, and the candidate with the fewest votes shall be eliminated.
>

The language in the brackets "more often than the other way around" needs to be different.

Juho, if you could take the following original and graft your (3) into it, that makes it something to compare to.

Here is their (non-Condorcet RCV) original:

________________________________________________________

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, for the purpose of placing a charter change question on the March 3, 2020 town meeting election ballot, the City Council hereby refers the following question amending City Charter § 5 to its Charter Change Committee for review and recommendation to the full City Council by its December 16, 2019 meeting, in order to reintroduce ranked choice voting for the election of the City’s mayor, city councilors, and school commissioners:

§ 5 Election to be by ballot; method of election:

All elections of mayor, city councilors and school commissioners shall be by ballot, using a system of ranked choice voting without a separate runoff election. The chief administrative officer shall implement a
ranked choice voting protocol according to these guidelines:
  (1) The ballot shall give voters the option of ranking candidates in order of preference.
  (2) If a candidate receives a majority (over 50 percent) of first preferences, that candidate is elected.
  (3) If no candidate receives a majority of first preferences, an instant runoff retabulation shall be performed by the presiding election officer. The instant runoff retabulation shall be conducted in rounds. In each round, each voter’s ballot shall count as a single vote for whichever continuing candidate the voter has ranked highest. The candidate with the fewest votes after each round shall be eliminated until only two candidates remain, with the candidate then receiving the greatest number of votes being elected.
  (4) The city council may adopt additional regulations consistent with this subsection to implement these standards.
________________________________________________________


Here is my latest BTR-STV stab at it:

________________________________________________________

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, for the purpose of placing a charter change question on the March 3, 2020 town meeting election ballot, the City Council hereby refers the following question amending City Charter § 5 to its Charter Change Committee for review and recommendation to the full City Council by its December 16, 2019 meeting, in order to reintroduce ranked choice voting for the election of the City’s mayor, city councilors, and school commissioners:

§ 5 Election to be by ballot; method of election:

All elections of mayor, city councilors and school commissioners shall be by ballot, using a system of ranked choice voting without a separate runoff election. The chief administrative officer shall implement a ranked choice voting protocol according to these guidelines:
  (1) The ballot shall give voters the option of ranking candidates in order of preference.
  (2) If a candidate receives a majority (over 50 percent) of first preferences, that candidate is elected.
  (3) If no candidate receives a majority of first preferences, an instant runoff retabulation shall be performed by the presiding election officer. The instant runoff retabulation shall be conducted in sequential rounds. A "remaining candidate" is defined as a candidate that has not been eliminated in any previous round. Initially, no candidate is eliminated and all candidates begin as remaining candidates.
  (4) In each round, each voter’s ballot shall count as a single vote for whichever remaining candidate the voter has ranked highest. The two candidates with the fewest votes in a round, herein designated as "A" and "B", shall be compared in a runoff in which the candidate, A or B, with lesser voter support is eliminated in the current round. If the number of ballots having A ranked higher than B exceeds the number of ballots having B ranked higher than A, then B has lesser voter support, B is eliminated, and A remains for the following round. Likewise, if the number of ballots having B ranked higher than A exceeds the number of ballots having A ranked higher than B, then A has lesser voter support, A is eliminated, and B remains for the following round. In the case that the aforementioned measure of voter support between A and B is tied, then the candidate with fewest votes is eliminated in the current round.
  (5) This runoff retabulation, eliminating one candidate each round, is repeated until only two candidates remain, with the candidate then receiving the greatest number of votes being elected.
  (6) The city council may adopt additional regulations consistent with this subsection to implement these standards.
________________________________________________________




--
 


 
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] Burlington VT reconsidering IRV 10 years after IRV failed to elect the Condorcet Winner

VoteFair-2
On 12/4/2019 7:26 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
 >> On December 4, 2019 9:50 PM Juho Laatu <[hidden email]> wrote:
 >> ... In each round, if one of the continuing candidates is preferred
[in the ranked ballots] over any other continuing candidate [more often
than the other way around] [, when that candidate is compared to every
other continuing candidate one by one], then that candidate will be
elected. ...

One way to simplify the wording when pairwise counting is involved -- as
it is here -- is to refer to "more than half the ballots."

Accordingly, here is an alternate wording for the above sentence:

In each round, if there is a not-yet-eliminated candidate who is ranked
higher on more than half the ballots when that candidate is compared to
each and every one of the other not-yet-eliminated candidates on a
pairwise (one-on-one) basis, then that pairwise-winning candidate shall
be elected.

I'll again repeat my point that the wordings being proposed do not
specify what to do with ballots that rank more than one candidate at the
same preference level. If voting will be done electronically then this
issue will only affect the few ballots submitted by mail (such as from
people overseas in military service), but otherwise this gap will allow
many, many ballots to be discarded as "spoiled" even though they are
marked in a reasonable way.

Again, good luck getting at least some improvements.

Richard Fobes

On 12/4/2019 7:26 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:

>
>
>> On December 4, 2019 9:50 PM Juho Laatu <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> (3) If no candidate receives a majority of first preferences, an instant runoff re-tabulation shall be performed by the presiding election officer. The instant runoff re-tabulation shall be conducted in rounds. In each round, if one of the continuing candidates is preferred [in the ranked ballots] over any other continuing candidate [more often than the other way around] [, when that candidate is compared to every other continuing candidate one by one], then that candidate will be elected. If there is no such candidate, each voter’s ballot shall count as a single vote for whichever continuing candidate the voter has ranked highest, and the candidate with the fewest votes shall be eliminated.
>>
>
> The language in the brackets "more often than the other way around" needs to be different.
>
> Juho, if you could take the following original and graft your (3) into it, that makes it something to compare to.
>
> Here is their (non-Condorcet RCV) original:
>
> ________________________________________________________
>
> NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, for the purpose of placing a charter change question on the March 3, 2020 town meeting election ballot, the City Council hereby refers the following question amending City Charter § 5 to its Charter Change Committee for review and recommendation to the full City Council by its December 16, 2019 meeting, in order to reintroduce ranked choice voting for the election of the City’s mayor, city councilors, and school commissioners:
>
> § 5 Election to be by ballot; method of election:
>
> All elections of mayor, city councilors and school commissioners shall be by ballot, using a system of ranked choice voting without a separate runoff election. The chief administrative officer shall implement a
> ranked choice voting protocol according to these guidelines:
>   (1) The ballot shall give voters the option of ranking candidates in order of preference.
>   (2) If a candidate receives a majority (over 50 percent) of first preferences, that candidate is elected.
>   (3) If no candidate receives a majority of first preferences, an instant runoff retabulation shall be performed by the presiding election officer. The instant runoff retabulation shall be conducted in rounds. In each round, each voter’s ballot shall count as a single vote for whichever continuing candidate the voter has ranked highest. The candidate with the fewest votes after each round shall be eliminated until only two candidates remain, with the candidate then receiving the greatest number of votes being elected.
>   (4) The city council may adopt additional regulations consistent with this subsection to implement these standards.
> ________________________________________________________
>
>
> Here is my latest BTR-STV stab at it:
>
> ________________________________________________________
>
> NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, for the purpose of placing a charter change question on the March 3, 2020 town meeting election ballot, the City Council hereby refers the following question amending City Charter § 5 to its Charter Change Committee for review and recommendation to the full City Council by its December 16, 2019 meeting, in order to reintroduce ranked choice voting for the election of the City’s mayor, city councilors, and school commissioners:
>
> § 5 Election to be by ballot; method of election:
>
> All elections of mayor, city councilors and school commissioners shall be by ballot, using a system of ranked choice voting without a separate runoff election. The chief administrative officer shall implement a ranked choice voting protocol according to these guidelines:
>   (1) The ballot shall give voters the option of ranking candidates in order of preference.
>   (2) If a candidate receives a majority (over 50 percent) of first preferences, that candidate is elected.
>   (3) If no candidate receives a majority of first preferences, an instant runoff retabulation shall be performed by the presiding election officer. The instant runoff retabulation shall be conducted in sequential rounds. A "remaining candidate" is defined as a candidate that has not been eliminated in any previous round. Initially, no candidate is eliminated and all candidates begin as remaining candidates.
>   (4) In each round, each voter’s ballot shall count as a single vote for whichever remaining candidate the voter has ranked highest. The two candidates with the fewest votes in a round, herein designated as "A" and "B", shall be compared in a runoff in which the candidate, A or B, with lesser voter support is eliminated in the current round. If the number of ballots having A ranked higher than B exceeds the number of ballots having B ranked higher than A, then B has lesser voter support, B is eliminated, and A remains for the following round. Likewise, if the number of ballots having B ranked higher than A exceeds the number of ballots having A ranked higher than B, then A has lesser voter support, A is eliminated, and B remains for the following round. In the case that the aforementioned measure of voter support between A and B is tied, then the candidate with fewest votes is eliminated in the current round.
>   (5) This runoff retabulation, eliminating one candidate each round, is repeated until only two candidates remain, with the candidate then receiving the greatest number of votes being elected.
>   (6) The city council may adopt additional regulations consistent with this subsection to implement these standards.
> ________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
>
> 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] Burlington VT reconsidering IRV 10 years after IRV failed to elect the Condorcet Winner

robert bristow-johnson


> On December 4, 2019 11:50 PM VoteFair <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>  
>
> In each round, if there is a not-yet-eliminated candidate who is ranked
> higher on more than half the ballots when that candidate is compared to
> each and every one of the other not-yet-eliminated candidates on a
> pairwise (one-on-one) basis, then that pairwise-winning candidate shall
> be elected.

need to define the "pairwise-winning candidate".

> I'll again repeat my point that the wordings being proposed do not
> specify what to do with ballots that rank more than one candidate at the
> same preference level.

Even though for a pure Condorcet, equal ranking is allowed, this does not work for IRV because, when a single candidate is promoted to a voter's effective (contingency) first choice, IRV would not know which of the equally-ranked candidates to promote.  That was clear in previous implementations of IRV.  I am not sure that this languages needs to be on the ballot where voters consider and approve (or reject) IRV.  But it must be on the Instructions to Voters on each ballot.

> If voting will be done electronically then this
> issue will only affect the few ballots submitted by mail (such as from
> people overseas in military service), but otherwise this gap will allow
> many, many ballots to be discarded as "spoiled" even though they are
> marked in a reasonable way.

I believe our paper-scan IRV software in 2009 was able to handle gaps in the ranking.  You could rank #1, #2, then #5 and if no other ranks are marked, the #5 rank is effectively #3.  All unranked candidates are tied for last place.

> Again, good luck getting at least some improvements.

Thank you.  We shall see.

Just now I sent the working language I had to the city councilors for consideration.  Dunno if they'll listen.

--

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] Burlington VT reconsidering IRV 10 years after IRV failed to elect the Condorcet Winner

VoteFair-2
On 12/4/2019 9:09 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
 > need to define the "pairwise-winning candidate".

Would this work?

In each round, if there is a not-yet-eliminated candidate who is ranked
higher on more than half the ballots when that candidate is compared to
each and every one of the other not-yet-eliminated candidates on a
pairwise (one-on-one) basis, then this candidate shall be identified as
the pairwise-winning candidate, and this pairwise-winning candidate
shall be elected.

 > Even though for a pure Condorcet, equal ranking is allowed, this
 > does not work for IRV ...

I concede that this issue of equal ranking is not worth your efforts in
this situation.

However, to participants in this forum I want to clarify that IRV can
use fractional votes.  Such IRV software would need to look through the
ballots after each elimination round to determine how much weight (such
as 0.25 if there are still 4 candidates ranked at the same preference
level) is given to each candidate.  The sum of the votes, including
fractional votes, determines which candidate gets the fewest votes.

BTW "fractional" votes does not refer to using fractions, but rather
refers to splitting a three-way equal ranking into decimal equivalents
such as 0.33 for one candidate and 0.33 for a second candidate and 0.33
for a third candidate. (Using actual fractions in software would be a
nightmare.)

I agree that fractional votes in STV (rather than IRV) would be a much
bigger problem -- but even then I believe there are ways to avoid
tossing out a ballot that uses equal rankings.

Yes, such software requires more work, but it only needs to be done once
by one person.

Credibility for this opinion is based on my experience writing IRV
counting code for use at VoteFair.org for comparison with VoteFair
ranking results. Yes, IRV calculations are very messy when they are done
right.  (Using a "look-ahead" approach even ties can be handled nicely.)
  Yet IMO laziness is not a valid excuse when developing good software.

Robert, thank you for considering my wording suggestions.

Richard Fobes


On 12/4/2019 9:09 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:

>
>
>> On December 4, 2019 11:50 PM VoteFair <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> In each round, if there is a not-yet-eliminated candidate who is ranked
>> higher on more than half the ballots when that candidate is compared to
>> each and every one of the other not-yet-eliminated candidates on a
>> pairwise (one-on-one) basis, then that pairwise-winning candidate shall
>> be elected.
>
> need to define the "pairwise-winning candidate".
>
>> I'll again repeat my point that the wordings being proposed do not
>> specify what to do with ballots that rank more than one candidate at the
>> same preference level.
>
> Even though for a pure Condorcet, equal ranking is allowed, this does not work for IRV because, when a single candidate is promoted to a voter's effective (contingency) first choice, IRV would not know which of the equally-ranked candidates to promote.  That was clear in previous implementations of IRV.  I am not sure that this languages needs to be on the ballot where voters consider and approve (or reject) IRV.  But it must be on the Instructions to Voters on each ballot.
>
>> If voting will be done electronically then this
>> issue will only affect the few ballots submitted by mail (such as from
>> people overseas in military service), but otherwise this gap will allow
>> many, many ballots to be discarded as "spoiled" even though they are
>> marked in a reasonable way.
>
> I believe our paper-scan IRV software in 2009 was able to handle gaps in the ranking.  You could rank #1, #2, then #5 and if no other ranks are marked, the #5 rank is effectively #3.  All unranked candidates are tied for last place.
>
>> Again, good luck getting at least some improvements.
>
> Thank you.  We shall see.
>
> Just now I sent the working language I had to the city councilors for consideration.  Dunno if they'll listen.
>
> --
>
> r b-j                  [hidden email]
>
> "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
>
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info
12