[godelski]

What's kinda interesting about Election Science is how they've changed strategies. They used to push STAR till about a year ago and have since moved to approval voting. It seems they have found that approval is easier to sell to the average person and is still good enough.

> Valuing clear and honest discussion about member preferences in voting systems

This is a difficult thing tbh. A lot of people learn about voting systems from CGP Grey or Hasan Minhaj and get really passionate, so you get an armchair expertise. Then I think many learn about VSE and see Condorcet methods as the obvious winners (I used to be in this camp). But it often takes awhile to internalize all the nuances in voting. About how to balance VSE, resiliency, simplicity, transparency, computational cost, and more. It is one of those problems that looks easier than it is. A lot of very smart people get into it because it is an interesting problem but it is also easy to convince yourself that your understanding is far better than it is. Every time these threads come up I learn something new and I've been interested in the subject for almost a decade. I think the biggest thing I've learned is to look at the people who have been studying the problem for a long time and see why they are making their decisions. It is difficult to separate the signal from the noise.

In addition to the discord link I also suggest following Clay Shentrup[0]. He's active with Election Science and the co-inventor of STAR (he also typically joins voting threads on HN. Username is his full name). The reason I follow him is because reading his comments and posts have led me to a lot more sources and brought up a lot of the above nuances I didn't understand when I first started getting into the subject.

[0] https://clayshentrup.medium.com/

[ranicki]

You may be confusing CES with some other organization. I asked on CES's public discord:

    ranicki: someone on HN claimed that Center for Election Science switched from pushing STAR to pushing approval. is it true that this organization formerly supported STAR, or was it one of the other organizations? I don't remember who was advocating for what
    -redacted name-: Center for Election Science has broadly supported cardinal voting methods, score voting and approval voting basically since its inception. From everything I can tell it still is supportive of cardinal methods broadly, but as a political tactic has honed in on approval voting specifically due to its Pareto optimality.
    ...
    -redacted name 2-: I don't think CES ever changed from STAR to approval. IIRC they existed long before STAR was invented

(Names are redacted because I didn't ask permission to quote, but the discussion is publicly visible and not sensitive at all.)

[xpe]

> "From everything I can tell it still is supportive of cardinal methods broadly, but as a political tactic has honed in on approval voting specifically due to its Pareto optimality."

Hmmm... the notion of Pareto optimality is driving political tactics (about what voting method to back)? I know what it means, and it seems strange to me. This suggests that a specialized economic term was used as a motivation for a tactical political decision.

[fdsjgfklsfd]

CES was originally a research-based organization, but recently shifted to advocating Approval Voting and trying to get it implemented. (I think they should rename as the Center for Approval Voting.)

Their forum and Google Group for discussion of voting systems were good resources, but are now being shut down

https://forum.electionscience.org/t/archiving-the-forum-july...

https://groups.google.com/g/electionscience

"This change reflects CES’s gradual evolution from an academic organization to an advocacy organization."

A volunteer-run forum has been created to replace it, but is pretty quiet so far.

https://www.votingtheory.org/

http://reddit.com/r/EndFPTP is also a good "non-partisan" resource, as well as https://electowiki.org/wiki/Main_Page