The Unrealistic Circumscribed Speculations Of Feckless Election Methods Cognoscenti

95% of all the calamitous “problems” that we, most unfortunately, feel a need to discuss here, could presumably have been avoided if we had such a thing as democracy in the U.S.A. (and elsewhere too). But we are stuck with a “choose-one” voting method, which automatically results in a “spoiler effect” that causes it to be pointless to vote for candidates of small parties, other than the major two parties, that are not backed by the entrenched political apparatus. Also, it surely must be obvious that we need decentralized hand counting of paper ballots, with results announced prior to being sent to larger counting centers — we must not use voting machines of any kind.

For the last 13 years I have been studying election methods to find a method that can effectively disrupt the spoiler effect, and thus the two-party “system”. There is a method called “ranked voting” (“IRV” is a form of this) which is being promoted by giant corporate think tank. If anything, it is much worse than choose-one voting. It has been described by blogger Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com as a virus. Then there is something called “approval voting”, whereby the voter can give (or withhold) one vote to (or from) as many candidates as they wish. This is rather lame and does not mitigate the spoiler effect very much. At the end of the day, “strategic hedge simple score voting” is really the only thing that can work effectively. Yet it is ignored by the feckless election methods cognoscenti.

Here is some email material between myself and Warren D. Smith at The Center for Election Science (a “Google Group”):
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!forum/electionscience

(I have already posted some of it at the Moon of Alabama website.)

/~~~~~~~~~~
email — [blues]
Apr 6 (10 days ago)

Sent
From:
[blues]
To:
[warren d smith]
Subject:
Strategic Hedge Simple Score Voting Is The ONLY Method That. . .
Date:
Thursday, April 06, 2017 6:42 AM
Size:
1 KB

. . . .does not treat elite interest involved elections as if they were
casual “hobby club” elections. Therefor it is able to effectively
disrupt the spoiler effect, and thus, the two-party “system”.

The Approval method is inadequately differentiative for degree of
preference, and thus cannot support any strategy to overcome the spoiler
effect. Other methods are more complex, and increased complexity,
however slight, generally leads to follow-on dilemmas that favor the
strategies of the elites. The Strategic Hedge Simple Score Voting
method is the only one that can effectively overcome elite strategies.

You might be interested in my post at:
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/04/ignoring-the-people-where-the-left-of-the-aisle-side-fails.html#c6a00d8341c640e53ef01b7c8ea4d7b970b

Thank you in advance for your kind attention.

Sincerely,

blues
\~~~~~~~~~~

Reply from W. D. Smith:
/~~~~~~~~~~
email — Warren D Smith
Apr 6 (10 days ago)

From:
Warren D Smith
To:
[blues]
Subject:
Re: Strategic Hedge Simple Score Voting Is The ONLY Method That. . .
Date:
Thursday, April 06, 2017 1:23 PM
Size:
7 KB

On 4/6/17, [blues] wrote:

. . . .does not treat elite interest involved elections as if they were
casual “hobby club” elections. Therefor it is able to effectively
disrupt the spoiler effect, and thus, the two-party “system”.

The Approval method is inadequately differentiative for degree of
preference, and thus cannot support any strategy to overcome the spoiler
effect. Other methods are more complex, and increased complexity,
however slight, generally leads to follow-on dilemmas that favor the
strategies of the elites. The Strategic Hedge Simple Score Voting
method is the only one that can effectively overcome elite strategies.

You might be interested in my post at:
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/04/ignoring-the-people-where-the-left-of-the-aisle-side-fails.html#c6a00d8341c640e53ef01b7c8ea4d7b970b

Thank you in advance for your kind attention.
blues
–Wonder what [blues] is talking about?
Consulting said post, he wrote in his key paragraph:

QUOTE
Strategic hedge simple score voting can be described in one simple
sentence: Strategically bid no vote at all for undesired candidates
(ignore them as though they did not exist), or strategically cast from
one to ten votes (or five to ten votes, for easier counting) for any
number of candidates you prefer (up to some reasonable limit of, say,
twelve candidates, so people don’t hog voting booths), and then simply
add all the votes up.
END QUOTE

Well, not exactly a “simple sentence,” sorry.
I do not know what he meant. It seems like he meant either
(a) What I call “score voting” aka “range voting,” sum-based version:
Each ballot provides a numerical score for each and every candidate
on an 0-9 scale;
candidate with highest sum of scores wins; treat unscored candidates
as scored 0 by that ballot.

or
(b) What has been called “cumulative voting”:
Same as (a) except the sum of all the scores on your ballot is
required to be <=10.

Either interpretation, I fail to see the “strategic hedge” new
contribution, if any.

Cumulative voting is neither as good nor as simple as range voting.
And I think average-based scoring, with unscored candidates
treated as “unscored” not as “0,”
is superior to the sum-based version in (a) above.

In any case I would recommend to [blues] that he actually clearly state
what the hell he is
talking about, in step-by-step fashion that is absolutely impossible
to misinterpret. Rather than just spew enthusiastic incoherence.


Warren D. Smith
http://RangeVoting.org
\~~~~~~~~~~

/~~~~~~~~~~
(Original comment at MoA):

Of the now literally hundreds of “fancy” voting methods all over the Internet, Strategic Hedge Simple Score Voting is the only one that specifically enables the common voters to win elections against the two-party empowered deep state. All of the many others treat elite interest involved elections as if they were casual “hobby club” elections. These distracting, ill-considered, unworkable election methods are the products of a booming academic “industry” erected by a large contingent of “election methods cognoscenti”. If the common voters are to ever defeat the elite deep state apparatus which will, of course, always utilize strategy, those common voters must have the ability to effectively vote strategically.

Too bad we don’t have simple score voting. Then we could give between 1 and 10 votes to many candidates. But no votes at all for Hillary the war monger. We might place 8 “hedge” votes for Bernie (since he is less bad than Hillary (or more accurately, was previously though to be)), 10 write-in votes for Jesse Ventura, and 10 write-in votes for Dennis Kucinich.

Strategic hedge simple score voting can be described in one simple sentence: Strategically bid no vote at all for undesired candidates (ignore them as though they did not exist), or strategically cast from one to ten votes (or five to ten votes, for easier counting) for any number of candidates you prefer (up to some reasonable limit of, say, twelve candidates, so people don’t hog voting booths), and then simply add all the votes up.

We must also abolish deep state subvertible election machines (“computer voting”), and get back to hand counted paper ballots, with results announced at each polling station just prior to being sent up to larger tabulation centers.

It should be obvious that congresspeople and presidents should be limited to one-year terms of office.

The Direct Democracy (e.g. Liquid Democracy) advocated by Iceland’s Pirate Party (and Jackrabbit) may also represent a very beneficial alternative to the spoiler effect imposing choose-one method. See:

How the German Pirate Party’s “Liquid Democracy” Works
http://techpresident.com/news/wegov/22154/how-german-pirate-partys-liquid-democracy-works

Posted by: blues | Apr 6, 2017 5:34:35 AM | 16
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/04/ignoring-the-people-where-the-left-of-the-aisle-side-fails.html#c6a00d8341c640e53ef01b7c8ea4d7b970b
\~~~~~~~~~~

I responded 6 days ago, but have not heard back in any way:
/~~~~~~~~~~
Further Reasons {1}
[blues]
Apr 10 (6 days ago)
to [warren d smith]
Sent

Subject:
Further Reasons {1}
Date:
Monday, April 10, 2017 10:00 PM
Size:
2 KB

I painstakingly shun “social media” such as Facebook, Google Plus, etc. in order to make a token defense of what remains of my privacy.

Strategic Hedge Simple Score Voting is indeed not technically distinct from Score (or Range) voting, except for some inconspicuous details that are mandated by its special objectives. Its objectives include:

(+) It must effectively disrupt the spoiler effect, and thus end the two-party system.
(+) It must be very resistant to the influence of the entrenched political apparatus.
(+) It must be, and also give the appearance of being, very simple and comprehensible.
(+) It must be completely compatible with the decentralized hand counting of paper ballots.

For example, the possible votes on a ballot are: Ignore a candidate on the ballot as if they did not exist; give from one (or, say, five) to ten votes to a candidate on the ballot; or write in a candidate and similarly give from one (or, say, five) to ten votes to that candidate. And that is all.

Why give from one (or, say, five) to ten votes rather than give from zero to nine votes? Well, the common voters must employ strategy if they are to defeat the entrenched political apparatus. And having ten as the greatest vote simplifies this strategy, since giving eight votes is clearly seen to produce a sacrifice of 20% of the influence of a given vote entry, giving six votes produces a sacrifice of 40%, etc.

There is no point in offering a “zero” vote. It only invites election officials (the entrenched political apparatus) to demand a “full ballot”. Thus tossing out votes of those who are too dignified to cast “zero” votes (blaming with faint praise).

(To be continued.)

See:
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/04/open-thread-2017-14.html#c6a00d8341c640e53ef01bb098f2c38970d

Thank you again,
[blues]
\~~~~~~~~~~

I hope this is not too long and confusing. However THIS is how we ended up with candidates such as Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump! Meanwhile, these election methods cognoscenti continue with their “intellectual glass bead game”, playing in their “operative election methods tar pit”. These people are teaching useless college courses and spilling endless digital ink at Wikipedia while war horses breed at the border!

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s