[Lnc-business] Interesting analysis forwarded by member

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Member wishes to be unnamed:

=====
I hadn't seen news of this through the National LP so perhaps people aren't
aware of this.

I'd suggested to a few people in the LP hierarchy that the Johnson campaign
needed to do an approval voting (or other alternative voting method) poll.
Imagine how different the argument for getting more press coverage or
pressure to be included in debates would have been if they could have
demonstrated 32.4% approval, showing its a public service to cover the
campaign? Perhaps people might pass this along now:

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/25/13733322/i
nstant-runoff-ranked-voting-2016

Would a different style of voting have changed the 2016 election? We tested
5 alternatives.


...Lastly, some voting experts have argued that neither rankings nor
first-past-the-post voting methods are ideal, and instead favor what’s
known as “approval voting.” <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting>


Voters who find a candidate acceptable or somewhat acceptable:
Hillary Clinton: 48.4%
Donald Trump:  46.7%
Gary Johnson: 32.4%


....Some ranked voting systems *would* change the result of the election,
however. One common method, used for determining the winner of the Heisman
Trophy and the MLB MVP awardee, is the Borda count
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borda_count>,

...This is a somewhat ham-handed way to compute results, and it gives some
very weird results; like instant-runoff voting, it doesn't always elect the
candidate who'd beat all the others. In the 2016 election, it would’ve
resulted in *Gary Johnson* winning the presidency:

Unfortunately it doesn't give the raw data, and its methodology for
"approval voting" isn't quite what it should be, but it gives the idea. I
suppose there are enough sports fans that the Borda count isn't too
academic. The public could be told that "Many today are objecting to the
current electoral college method of electing the president. If we were
going to make changes, an alternative voting scheme might result in very
different results, if it were done like the way the Heisman Trophy or MLB
MVP were awarded..". Unfortunately people are a bit skeptical of polls now,
this would have been more effective before the election, but its still
useful.

Its still possible for the figures to be used to argue for future media
coverage, suggesting  that various ethical guidelines journalists claim to
follow (i.e. their standards, not merely begging for coverage) were
violated to perhaps try to get debate in the media over the issue, perhaps
finding some journalism profs and SPJ members to argue that case.

 I'm not sure why the campaign didn't do this sort of poll before the
election (or any of a list of other things that might have had an impact).
Although most libertarians  engage in rational thinking about policy
decisions, I'm not sure Libertarians  always applies the same rigor to
their strategic thinking, not taking time for it even though sometimes
thinking things through saves time in the long run.
=====

-- 
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
<http://www.lpcolorado.org>
Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
<http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20161201/a68eb173/attachment-0001.html>