The Polling Project

You are here

5 posts / 0 new
Last post
The Polling Project

First, I hope that a polling-company isn't being hired to do this poll. If help is to be hired, then personally hire polling workers in the various regions.


But can't volunteers be gotten for polling?

Purpose of poll:

Trying out voting-systems, finding out how people will vote? Not so sure about that purpose.

With rankings, peolple will rank sincerely if its made clear that a virtually strategy-proof count method will be used.

It's already known that well-informed Approval voting usually elects the sincere CW. ...& that with our dishonest media & a public who believe them, voters tend to woefully over-compromise..

Likewise with Score.

So: There isn't much to find out about how people will vote.

Suggested purposes for poll:

1. Test accuracy of unverifiable official count-results:

Ask "If you voted in the Democrat primary, how did you vote?"

You know, until we have verifiable vote-counting, it makes no difference what voting-systems we use.

Someone wanting better voting-systems without verifiable vote-count is like someone wanting to build a house without buying any property.

2. Show people that there are more alternatives & offerings than they think,  & that media-excluded choices have significant support.

So ask people to rank a broad range of candidates, of a broad range of parties.

"Rank, in order of preference, as many or as few candidates as you want to."

The official & primary rank-count should be the strategy-ptoof Benham or Woodall method. Assure voters that that there's no reason to not just rank sincerely.


Do IRV till there's an un-eliminated candidate who pair-beats all the other un-eljminated candidates. Elect hir.

(end of Benham definition)


Do IRV till only one member of the initially Smith-set remains un-eliminated. Elect hir

(end of Woodall definition)

(The Smith set is the smallest set of candidates who all pair-beat everyone outside the set.)

I suggest Benham, because of its briefer definition.

Of course Score or Approval could be substituted if they were all that could be feasibly balloted & counted.

You might choose to include Approval &/ or Score anyway,  additionally. 

But that makes more for respondents to do. Your choice, of course.

If you do, then give them the instruction. they should have in a real election:


"Mark the very best candidates--the ones you really like & fully trust."

Score (0-100):

"Give max rating to those you'd mark in Approval, & min rating to the others.

" Maybe give max minus 1 to some of the approval-set, & min  plus 1 to some of the others.

"If a candidate's classification is uncertain, then give hir some appropriated seeming in between rating.

"...or just rate as a measure of how much you like the candididates (100  = best, 0 = worst)"

Michael Ossipoff
























A few additional comments

1. Score Strategy:

I included a "sincere rating" possibility my Score-voting instructions. I retract it.

Someone can vote thus if they feel like it. They need no instruction for that.

The instruction should help them vote in their best interest.

...instead of trying to use a voter to maximize social utility.

In any case, max SU isn't achieved anyway, even approximately, unless nearly all rate sincerely.

So disregard the sincere-raring suggestion.

Why I suggested ratings differing by 1 point (out of 100)) from Max & Min:

Amicable, mutually-trusting factions can effectively fully support each other, while still making the bigger faction win--by rating each other 99 points.

It's like mini- local Approval, at both ends.

2. Favorite-Count:

If Approval or Score is substituted for Benham, then people should be additionally asked their favorite. That's important basic information, favoritness groups.

3. Approval instruction:

I said to vote according to likedness & trust, instead of tactical information.

...because people don't have reliable tactical information.

Yes, honest polls show that Trump won't outpoll Jill Stein. ...& that therefore String preferred shave no reason to approve Hillary.

But how many people have heard of those lolls?

So I'd just instruct people to approve the. Very best, whom they really like & completely trust.

Michael Ossipoff




Rank-count must be stated before vote.

When you say "rankings" some will head "IRV". They might rank a lesser evil in 1st place.

Some will hear " Pairwise-Count. They might try offensive order-reversal" (burial), or feel a strategic need for truncation.

Some will hear "Borda",  & try order-reversal.

So you must state a strategy-proof rank-count. I suggest Benham or Woodall.

...& assure voters that offensive strategy can't succeed, & will backfire badly every time.

...& that therefore voters need only rank sincerely.. many or as few as desired.


Do IRV till there's an uu-eliminated candidate who pair-beats all other un-eliminated candidates. Elect hir.

(end of Benham dfn)


Do IRv till only one member of the initial Smith-set remains un-eliminated. Elect hir.

Make it clear that Benham or Woodall will be the official count-rule, to determine the winner. & yes there shouldbe a winner, announced.

If you count by other methods, & report that, then say, " if we'd counted by IRV, then ______ would have won."

Michael Ossipoff1


Verifiability in poll

Will CES people, peoplu you know & trust, from all parts of the political spectrum, be present to observe balloting, & ballot-handljng, & to immediately image each ballot?

If not, then I can save you a lot of money:

You needn't hire the poll. I assure you that Hi!llary or Trump will win, BG all ballotings & counts.

With unverifiable vote-counting, the voting-system is entirely irrelevant. is the voting.

Michael Ossipoff

Variability is feasible

You could visit a variety of towns, &, in each one, let parties across the spectrum supply balloters/ballot-imagers. Either volunteer, or compensated for their time. 

That cross-party group would do balloting. Each voter puts hir ballot in the locked box.

Latter, the group opens the box & images each ballot.

1 at a time, each ballot is laid on a table. Above it, a frame holding digital cameras each belonging & controlled by one of the parties.

Each ballot is stamped with a sequential number & then imaged by all the pariies' cameras.

Because Benham & Woodall aren't precinct-summable, each town's chapter of a party would send its ballots to its national office, as a file. 

Each party's national office counts the election &  determines the winner by Approval, Score, & Benham.

Of courses CES gets a ballits-copy too.

Michael Ossipoff17

Log in or register to post comments

Follow The Center for Election Science on: