Hot off the presses! SRV-PR!

RE: "My main point is that in SRV-PR, a voter can sacrifice their scoring clout to get extra runoff clout."

One of the reasons that the SRV-Single Winner system was invented, as I understand it, is that the runoff clout helps incentivize voters to be more honest and less strategic. Specifically, it pays to not bullet vote EDIT: or do tactical minimization or maximization that would change your rankings (sacrifice scoring clout) so that your preferences are clear in the runoff. The two strategies for the two rounds are contradictory so you're best off just being honest.

I can't say I fully understand what you are saying about how scoring clout and runoff clout effect strategy in SRV-PR. For that matter I'm not sure I even fully get the algorithm in the first place (it's a lot simpler than IRV-PR/STV though.) But, if it's a similar effect to the trade off in the single winner version, could this clout conundrum be a balancing effect that helps to incentivize honest voting?

In other words, yes, it may help you in the runoff to have a lower score that your total voting weight is divided by. This would keep your votes weight in later rounds slightly higher, but by doing so you make it so that your favorite candidate is less likely to get elected in the first place. In SRV you can be strategically dishonest if you want, but the odds are that this will backfire and hurt you overall. It seems like the same is true in SRV-PR.

The real question is how dangerous this strategy could be for the electorate at large. It seems like the strategy doesn't give the strategic voter an unfair advantage, (on the contrary it's likely a disadvantage,) but a choice where to throw their weight. Seems fair enough to me and highly unlikely that people would try it anyways.

there's one true method of voting system evaluation

I think you probably knew before posting that Clay would not say anything like "yes, that's exactly what I mean"

I encourage everyone to keep working to use Rapoport's Rules for most effective discussion.

I'm not talking about bullet voting, I'm taking about using exclusively low scores.

Let’s say there’s a 5-winner election for Portland’s city council using SRV-PR with a 0-5 scale. One of the candidates wants to ban bicycles from the city, and I care more about keeping that candidate out than letting anyone else in, so I give them a 0 and each of the other candidates a 1.* So my “ballot influence” remains fairly strong all the way to the last runoff, even if candidates I like happen to be elected.

This is a moderately effective way for me to vote against the ban-the-bikes candidate, relative to the fact that I still have just the one vote amidst hundreds of thousands of other voters. Which means SRV-PR as currently defined isn’t really PR, because in PR there’s no way to cast an effective vote against a particular candidate or party. Everyone votes for the candidates they want, and you get a proportional body that includes minorities.

*Technical nuance: I might score some of the other candidates 0 instead of 1, if I think they’re likely to win without being in a runoff against the ban-the-bikes candidate.

Seems fair enough to me and highly unlikely that people would try it anyways.

People would definitely try it. Under plurality, millions of people deliberately sacrifice their right to vote for a candidate they want to vote against a candidate they don’t want. Lesser of two evils. I don’t know how thoroughly this empirical evidence would transfer from plurality to SRV-PR, but I think a lot would.

As for fairness, well, do we think PR is fairer than winner-take-all? I do, so I’m opposed to letting voters throw their weight against a candidate rather than toward a candidate.

The real question is how dangerous this strategy could be for the electorate at large.

Why? Is there a downside to fixing the problem I’ve pointed out with the current definition of SRV-PR? Would it be hard? Would there be unfortunate consequences?

I said: People would definitely try it. ... I don’t know how thoroughly this empirical evidence would transfer from plurality to SRV-PR, but I think a lot would.

Mmmm, let me walk this back a bit. I do think people would definitely try it, but "a lot"? Not sure.

But like I said, I don't see a downside to fixing this particular loophole so why not fix it.

I'm convinced that PR is good. I'm unconvinced that SRV-PR is better than simple RRV. I'm unconvinced that STV is all that bad relatively (it seems a lot less problematic than single-winner IRV, despite the same overall mechanisms). I'm not sure, but inclined to think that this adapted STV approach looks pretty good (possibly significantly better than STV and without the issues Fillard is worred about with SRV-PR).

Aaron, Clay -- I would welcome the opportunity to talk with each of you on the phone. I don't have your contact information, but you can find mine at https://www.loomio.org/d/eDuxfmGF/welcome-please-introduce-yourself . Thanks.

I'd suggest a group chat sometime via https://meet.jit.si perhaps (works in Firefox or Chrome/Chromium), I'd be happy to chat if we can find a good time that isn't taking too much away from other high-priority time for other things for me.

Aaron, I’ll cut to the chase: My wording was a little strong, but I meant what I said. I was in fact attempting -- consistent with a part of the rules you suggest -- to clearly, vividly, and fairly express Clay’s position. I acknowledged that I might be wrong and invited him to correct me.

If you don’t think my guess as to Clay’s position was reasonable, consider the exchange from https://www.loomio.org/d/wJrTfUR3/private-introduce-yourself where Nathan Hunter said “No abstraction is going to be the right tool for every job”, and Clay responded, “Unless that abstraction is utilitarianism.” Then go back and reread the discussion in this thread between Clay and me with that exchange in mind.

I recognize that the above review would take a little time. If you don’t have that kind of time, I certainly sympathize, but maybe calling other people’s sincerity into question is not the best activity for you to be engaging in right now.

In the event that you’d like to discuss this any further I suggest you call me. (Remember I can’t call or email you directly unless you provide your contact information, which I don’t believe you have.)

I didn't mean to call you out as being rude or anything or aggressive. I only was hoping to keep you and everyone to the highest standards (which I have regularly failed to meet myself, and I apologize for that).

I think Clay has been far more inclined to assert bold, simplistic things as part of a whole pattern on all sides of less-than-ideal discourse. It's not like he himself followed Rapoport's Rules. And I had no intention of saying that you (Fillard) had been at-fault for anything. I think you've done as well as anyone, and better than me, at staying really respectful, and I admire that.

So, let me restate that: I have zero doubt about your sincerity and good faith. I'm completely certain that you are acting in the best of faith and intentions and never meant otherwise. The entire point I was attempting to make was that I thought your particular wording was a fair interpretation of Clay to the extent that his argument could be read that way, but that it was unlikely he actually meant things as simplistically as he came across.

So, I was hoping to push those people like you who seem most amenable, mature, respectful and prepared to actually reach the highest standards to hope that you could be a part of the small number of people who aim to set a higher-bar by modeling the best discourse. I.e. I thought you were totally non-antagonistic and so had a chance and interest in doing even better (which is the sort of push I always appreciate from others for myself).

You've been a wonderful, positive, respectful part of this group, and I sincerely have nothing negative to say about you at all. I think you're the sort of person with the capacity to actually be effective at saying the sort of careful, disarming things that help others learn to improve themselves.

I regret that my brief text failed to carry this meaning well. I won't have much time for any of this going forward, but I care about real democracy and want to see this group succeed. Thanks for everything you're doing.

@fillardspringrhyne RE: "I'm not talking about bullet voting, I'm taking about using exclusively low scores." Sorry, I meant to be a bit more broad than Bullet Voting too. I edited that sentence to now read "Specifically, it pays to not bullet vote EDIT: or do tactical minimization or maximization that would change your rankings (sacrifice scoring clout) so that your preferences are clear in the runoff." I think I did get what you meant there despite the imperfect terminology usage!

RE: "One fundamental characteristic of PR is that there’s no effective way to vote against someone you don’t like." I'm not sure that this is actually ideal or good. It sounds good, and it may well be... My only thought is that in PR I kind of would like there to be a mechanism that helps monitory groups, while at the same not giving any extra advantage to other minority groups that are actively antagonistic to others.

Assuming that this is desirable I'd say that your fix for SRV-PR (changing MAX to mean max score given, not max score possible.) is a simple fix that corrects for the strategy you described.

The strategy you described above is a really smart strategy and I'm impressed you worked it out! I don't doubt that it would work but it's a lot more complicated to get then favorite betrayal in plurality. I think that most people would feel wary trying a strategy like that with obvious risk (major minimization of your favorite) unless they totally get it 100% and I think honestly most people wouldn't get it.