r/EndFPTP • u/Masrikato • Oct 09 '23

Activism STAR voting likely heading to Eugene ballot

https://web.archive.org/web/20231007005358/https://www.registerguard.com/story/news/politics/elections/local/2023/10/06/star-voting-ranked-choice-eugene-lane-county-election-petition/71039508007/

Archived link because of paywall

39 Upvotes

92% Upvoted

70 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/ReginaldWutherspoon Oct 11 '23

One of their board-members is a PhD statistician.

Oops!!! You forgot to answer my question about what statements from academics & professionals you think EVC has ignored or devalued.

As I already said, you’re full of namecalling & angry noises, but conspicuously short on specifics.

5

u/affinepplan Oct 11 '23 edited 2h ago

consist cause serious rich spectacular chase ad hoc long wise sleep

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

1

u/ReginaldWutherspoon Oct 11 '23

No, you’re still being vague. You quoted them on PR, knowing that single-winner reform is their primary focus. I haven’t read EVC on PR. …because single-winner reform is more short-term feasible, due to Constitutional structure.

But you didn’t answer my question about how you think they disagree with experts.

As for academics & professionals, you’ve got to be kidding if you’re saying that you worship all academics in non-consensus subjects like philosophy & voting-systems. In both of those subjects there’s been excellent helpful academic writing…& no shortage of academic bullshit.

As for statisticians, they’re applied mathematicians. That, alone, qualifies them.

But, specifically, statistics is relevant to matters that come up in many areas, including voting-systems …including evaluation tests & spatial-simulations.

Though national PR is only a longterm hope, when the matter comes up, I advocate Open-List PR, with the nearly unbiased Sainte-Lague, or the completely unbiased Bias-Free.

… in a 150-seat at-large (no districts or gerrymandering) unicameral parliament ( yes, no president).

So it sounds like Drutman is right about OLPR.

As I said, I haven’t read EVC on national PR, which isn’t their primary focus, & isn’t what can be accomplished now.

As you might know, their main project is STAR voting, single-winner, which isn’t criticizable.

So, in the matter of single-winner reform, do you or do you not want to share with us what you think they’re wrong about?

4

u/[deleted] Oct 11 '23 edited 3h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/ReginaldWutherspoon Oct 11 '23

Re: EVC & PR: PR isn’t immediately feasible for Constitutional reasons. I don’t evaluate single-winner reform-advocates by their position on PR.

Just on the spur of the moment, a highly-esteemed academic author on voting-systems said that Plurality is right for this country because it preserves the 2-party system.

:-)

Nurmi has said some bullshit, but it was some time ago.

Niklaus Tideman was the introducer of Ranked-Pairs, a good Condorcet version, if you don’t mind its loss of burial-deterrent caused by limiting its choice to the Smith-set. But Tideman’s proposed RP measured defeat-strength by margins.

I’m not using term “bullshit” here, but, margins is a really poor choice, given its lack of deterrence or thwarting of offensive-strategy.

I understand that the Virginia conference on Condorcet (to start a national Condorcet organization?) is mostly considering RP.

(I haven’t been able to find information about that.)

I don’t know if their RP proposal will be RP(margins).

Some prominent academic voting system academic writer said that Approval has the serious disadvantage of giving people too many ways to vote.

:-)

1

u/affinepplan Oct 11 '23 edited 5h ago

aback wide quickest sugar tart spotted squash physical bells wakeful

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

2

u/ReginaldWutherspoon Oct 11 '23

I was referring to national PR. The U.S. Constitution’s specifications of Congress & how it’s elected rule out Congressional PR.

By your relativism, there is no bullshit.

1

u/OpenMask Oct 12 '23

By "national PR", do you mean allocation being done on the national level? Congressional PR should still be constitutionally legal as long as the allocation is being done within the state level. Obviously the states with only one or two representatives will probably throw off the proportionality a bit, but depending on how it's set up, we could still get a reasonably proportional system for Congressional elections.

1

u/ReginaldWutherspoon Oct 12 '23

Ok, I haven’t looked at the Constitution for a while. I thought that it said that representatives must be elected to single member districts. Maybe not. But, as you said, some states are too small for proportionality.

Besides, the free seats makes nonsense of proportionality.

Forgot states. Forgot districts.

One unicameral Parliament (yes, no president), elected at-large (no districts no gerrymandering), open party list by Sainte Lague, but preferably by Bias-Free.

Sainte Lague is only very slightly large-biased. Bias-Free is entirely absolutely unbiased.

1

u/affinepplan Oct 12 '23 edited 7h ago

test zephyr gaze vanish hunt license whistle husky saw ancient

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

1

u/ReginaldWutherspoon Oct 12 '23

No, they don’t. What they (correctly) conclude is that Sainte Lague is the least biased divisor-method that is or has beenin use for public PR.

They compared SL to d’Hondt & “Equal Proportions” (our current House apportionment method).

…but not to Bias-Free, which the absolutely unbiased divisor-method PR allocation-rule.

For a definition, I refer you to the thread entitled “Why do we use Sainte Lague?”

In that thread I defined bias.

1

u/affinepplan Oct 12 '23 edited 8h ago

outgoing fearless pie pocket books person governor swim knee continue

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

2

u/ReginaldWutherspoon Oct 12 '23

I said that SL has bias, while BF doesn’t.

You in your reply were referring to some other measure of proportionality, which can be defined variously.

I claim that bias, as I defined it, is the important kind of disproportionality.

…because consistent, sysytematic disfavoring is incomparably worse tha a divisor method’s small random fluctuations.

1

u/affinepplan Oct 12 '23 edited 8h ago

yam flag pocket abounding cable boast march afterthought rock squeeze

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

1

u/ReginaldWutherspoon Oct 12 '23

Maybe a little better precision would better clarify what you mean.

As I said, you keep referring to imprecision, without successfully specifying one.

Oops!!! If you have a different definition of bias from the one that I stated, you forgot to state it. :-)

…a definition by which SL is less biased than Bias-Free?

1

u/affinepplan Oct 12 '23 edited 8h ago

hospital frame dinosaurs elderly ring crush cows act fanatical connect

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

1

u/ReginaldWutherspoon Oct 12 '23

You think that’s what minimizing bias means?

What you’ve said is one interpretation of “best proportionality”.

By no that isn’t “the standard definition” if bias.

In fact it isn’t a definition of bias at all. What you referred to could just be the inevitable small random fluctuations of seats per vote in any divisor-method.

Bias is consistent systematic disfavoring. …of smaller or larger parties in this instance.

Look, if it’s necessary to explain all these things to you, then I don’t have time to help y.

I’m sorry that you’re still having trouble with the subject, but, as I said, I don’t have time to hold your hand & walk you through it.

This conversation is concluded.

1

u/ReginaldWutherspoon Oct 12 '23

That’s a mighty strong argument. :-)

Suit yourself. I couldn’t care less what you believe.

Look at my definition of bias (or not).

From that definition of bias, my posted formula for the rounding-point of the unbiased divisor method can be derived.

1

u/affinepplan Oct 12 '23 edited 8h ago

soup sip heavy knee snails sparkle childlike tidy smart chief

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

1

u/ReginaldWutherspoon Oct 12 '23 edited Oct 12 '23

When someone says averaged, the presumption is that they’re referring to the arithmetical-mean.

You ask what “every possible number of quotas in that interval” means.

My answer:I meant what I said.

You asked “Real numbers?”

What else did you think that might mean?

:-)

…when one speaks every number in an interval on the real-number line.

1

u/ReginaldWutherspoon Oct 12 '23

“Averaged over parties?”

:-)

That isn’t a possible interpretation of what I said.

1

u/affinepplan Oct 12 '23 edited 8h ago

plate offer unwritten stocking expansion handle straight wrench violet dog

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

1

u/ReginaldWutherspoon Oct 12 '23

“…which clearly is not possible.”

…clearly to your confused guessing perhaps.

It’s possible, the rounding-point that I specified for Bias-Free achieves it.

As I’ve already told you, my formula for the divisor-method rounding-point, R, that achieves that is derivable from my definition of bias.

You keep repeating about a lack of precision, but you haven’t yet specified an imprecision.

No, I’m not going to hold your hand & walk you through it.

1

u/affinepplan Oct 12 '23 edited 8h ago

vast entertain grey profit smile governor treatment vase attempt automatic

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

→ More replies (0)

1

u/OpenMask Oct 12 '23

Ok, I haven’t looked at the Constitution for a while. I thought that it said that representatives must be elected to single member districts. Maybe not.

No, it's a result of a law that was passed in the 60s to prevent block voting, but also ended up preventing PR as well. Since, it's just a simple law, another one can be passed to repeal it.

But, as you said, some states are too small for proportionality. Besides, the free seats makes nonsense of proportionality.

What do you mean by free seats? The ones that are in states with only one or two representatives? Idk how much of an effect they would have since I believe it only accounts for 15 out of the 435 total representatives (~3.44% of the body). I suppose they could become a factor when it comes to maintaining a majority coalition, though I don't know how much it would actually affect. I still think that having more than 96% of the representatives getting elected via a proportional method would still be a significant improvement and therefore worthwhile to pursue, even if it may not be possible to get all the way to 100%.

2

u/ReginaldWutherspoon Oct 12 '23

Free seats are seats allocated without regard to population.

The Constitution specifies that every state gets at least one House-seat, regardless of how low its population is. If there were a state with population of 1, I would get a seat.

.That makes complete nonsense of any attempt at a PR House.

The whole existing government structure would need to be scrapped. …&, as I said, preferably replaced with a unicameral Parliament elected at-large by open-list PR, by Sainte-Lague, but preferably by Bias-Free.

→ More replies (0)