New home for this forum/community

I talked with Aaron of CES today, and emphasized the importance of keeping the existing forum URLs here functional over the long term, so I’m glad to see that Felix also was on-board with the plan to at least archive the current content of this forum in-place.
As the actual creator of the World Wide Web, Tim Berners-Lee famously wrote: Hypertext Style: Cool URIs don’t change.. And if they do have to change, they should at least be redirected in a useful way, to build on the momentum of all the people that published links to them. Remember - those are our people - out there on the web, linking to great content here about one of the most important things we deal with: how to make good collective decisions!

That is especially important for a site like this that isn’t crawled by the Internet Archive, since it is so Javascript-heavy.

It also sounds like they’ll be able to transfer us ownership of the google group!forum/electionscience in a de-branded way. That would also be important so we can direct people who end up a the URLs there towards our new forum.

I look forward to the new site. Thanks to all those involved!


Have we decided on a domain name yet? The forum is going to close in a few hours if CES sticks to their stated deadline, so we should probably either announce it or announce a place where it will be announced when we decide. Maybe we could announce it on since the new forum will be a coalition partner. @Sara_Wolf


Maybe we can agree to put up the final domain on electowiki. Make a page and add it here


OK, that sounds like a good idea. None of the other organizations have forum in the name so it should be clear which one it is.

That’s great.

What about the one over on Google? Can you convince Aaron and Felix to preserve that one as an archive as well, for the same reasons?

As I noted:

It also sounds like they’ll be able to transfer us ownership of the google group … in a de-branded way. That would also be important so we can direct people who end up a the URLs there towards our new forum.

But I haven’t heard the details from them yet.

Hi Forum Folks,

Yes, we’re happy to put out a blog post to promote the new forum for the websites ( and and also put it out on our social media and email blasts.

The poll results are in, but they’re not a great match with each other. In any case it’s a good starting point for us to know more about people’s preferences and make a final decision at the next meeting.

Url Winner- (Still have not heard back from CES on their feelings on us using Electoral Science so that’s a yes?)

Name Winner- Electoral Reform Forum (Try saying that out loud three times fast!)

Full results:

Top Compatible Options:

Does anyone want to call and host a next meeting? Maybe Wednesday or Thursday evening at 7:30pdt? If you can’t make either of those please suggest other times.


Sara Wolk


When I was putting the vote data into R, I noticed that was listed twice, and that the scores were not identical. Only 6 voters scored the duplicates the same.

I demand a chaotic recount that accomplishes nothing but produces a lot of drama for my entertainment.


Why doesn’t each individual election systems enthusiast simply create his or her own bbPress forum. This would promote much more independent thinking. These could easily be tied together in many various ways. See:

Webhosts that are seriously independent, which I recommend are:


I never have my domain names registered by the company that hosts my site, as trouble with hosting leads to trouble with registrations. I always strictly avoid the Big **Daddy company.

(It’s savvy to stay well clear of Google and similar giant censorial media corporations.)

URL results

URL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Record Mean Sum
1. X D3-12 D4-11 D6-9 T7-7 D4-11 D6-9 D3-11 D6-9 D4-11 D3-11 0-9-1 1.588 27
2. V12-3 X V9-5 V9-2 V9-4 D5-8 V10-4 T6-6 V7-3 D5-8 D5-8 6-3-1 2.944 53
3. V11-4 D5-9 X V6-5 V8-4 D4-11 V7-6 D5-8 T5-5 D3-8 D5-8 4-5-1 2.471 42
4. V9-6 D2-9 D5-6 X T6-6 D5-11 V8-5 T6-6 D4-8 D4-10 D5-10 2-6-2 2.25 36
5. T7-7 D4-9 D4-8 T6-6 X D5-9 T6-6 D5-8 D5-8 D5-7 D3-11 0-7-3 2.2 33
6. V11-4 V8-5 V11-4 V11-5 V9-5 X V10-2 V10-6 V10-5 V8-5 V7-5 10-0-0 3.235 55
7. V9-6 D4-10 D6-7 D5-8 T6-6 D2-10 X D7-8 D5-7 D5-8 D4-8 1-8-1 2.118 36
8. V11-3 T6-6 V8-5 T6-6 V8-5 D6-10 V8-7 X V7-5 D2-6 D5-9 5-3-2 3 54
9. V9-6 D3-7 T5-5 V8-4 V8-5 D5-10 V7-5 D5-7 X D2-8 D5-8 4-5-1 2.471 42
10. V11-4 V8-5 V8-3 V10-4 V7-5 D5-8 V8-5 V6-2 V8-2 X D6-7 8-2-0 3.235 55
11. V11-3 V8-5 V8-5 V10-5 V11-3 D5-7 V8-4 V9-5 V8-5 V7-6 X 9-1-0 3.059 52

(NAs not reflected in the table of pairwise matchups)

1 Like

You got your wish!

So… I got different results for the domain. I hesitate to share them I know I’ll be accused of cheating, since the one that I proposed seems to win. :slight_smile: I’d be super embarrassed if it’s a mistake on my part. Regardless, I share two Codepens, the first of which parses the CSV file, and the second which runs it under a bunch of methods. Under Score there is a tie, but all the other methods pick the same one.

Codepens: and

I could have messed up, so please check my work:

a[2] b[5] c[3] d[5] e[3] f[1] g[3] h[4] i[5] j[0] k[0]
a[0] b[2] c[1] d[1] e[5] f[3] g[4] h[3] i[3] j[3] k[4]
a[1] b[3] c[2] d[0] e[0] f[5] g[4] h[4] i[1] j[2] k[1]
a[4] b[2] c[4] d[1] e[3] f[5] g[1] h[2] i[2] j[2] k[4]
a[3] b[5] c[2] d[4] e[4] f[5] g[4] h[3] i[2] j[3] k[5]
a[4] b[3] c[0] d[2] e[3] f[3] g[1] h[0] i[2] j[0] k[5]
a[0] b[3] c[4] d[4] e[2] f[5] g[3] h[2] i[3] j[3] k[3]
a[0] b[4] c[2] d[2] e[5] f[3] g[3] h[2] i[4] j[3] k[3]
a[2] b[4] c[5] d[4] e[0] f[1] g[1] h[4] i[5] j[5] k[0]
a[1] b[3] c[5] d[0] e[0] f[5] g[4] h[3] i[2] j[3] k[5]
a[4] b[4] c[3] d[1] e[3] f[0] g[0] h[4] i[3] j[3] k[5]
a[0] b[0] c[0] d[0] e[0] f[0] g[0] h[5] i[0] j[5] k[0]
a[2] b[3] c[3] d[3] e[0] f[5] g[1] h[2] i[1] j[4] k[1]
a[1] b[4] c[3] d[4] e[2] f[1] g[1] h[4] i[4] j[5] k[4]
a[1] b[3] c[2] d[5] e[1] f[3] g[2] h[4] i[2] j[4] k[4]
a[0] b[1] c[3] d[0] e[2] f[5] g[4] h[3] i[3] j[5] k[3]
a[0] b[4] c[0] d[0] e[0] f[0] g[0] h[5] i[0] j[5] k[0]
a[2] b[0] c[0] d[0] e[0] f[5] g[0] h[0] i[0] j[0] k[5]

****** processed 18 ballots ******

****** Pairwise wins ******
f: 10
j: 8
k: 8
b: 6
h: 6
c: 4
i: 4
d: 2
g: 2
a: 1
e: 0
****** Score ******
f: 55 (3.0556)
j: 55 (3.0556)
h: 54 (3.0000)
b: 53 (2.9444)
k: 52 (2.8889)
c: 42 (2.3333)
i: 42 (2.3333)
d: 36 (2.0000)
g: 36 (2.0000)
e: 33 (1.8333)
a: 27 (1.5000)
****** STAR ******
f: 9
j: 6
****** Cardinal Baldwin ******
 ***** round 1 *****
    f: 3.0556
    j: 3.0556
    h: 3.0000
    b: 2.9444
    k: 2.8889
    c: 2.3333
    i: 2.3333
    d: 2.0000
    g: 2.0000
    e: 1.8333
    a: 1.5000
 ***** round 2 *****
    f: 2.8704
    j: 2.7500
    b: 2.7083
    k: 2.6852
    h: 2.6065
    i: 1.9861
    c: 1.9352
    d: 1.6898
    g: 1.6481
    e: 1.5602
 ***** round 3 *****
    f: 2.9167
    j: 2.8056
    b: 2.7500
    k: 2.7222
    h: 2.5880
    i: 2.0000
    c: 1.8380
    d: 1.6620
    g: 1.6389
 ***** round 4 *****
    f: 2.9167
    j: 2.8056
    b: 2.7500
    k: 2.7222
    h: 2.5880
    i: 2.0000
    c: 1.8380
    d: 1.6620
 ***** round 5 *****
    f: 2.9630
    j: 2.7130
    k: 2.7083
    b: 2.5694
    h: 2.4954
    c: 1.7454
    i: 1.7361
 ***** round 6 *****
    f: 2.9630
    k: 2.7083
    j: 2.6204
    b: 2.4769
    h: 2.4028
    c: 1.7454
 ***** round 7 *****
    f: 2.7778
    k: 2.7083
    j: 2.4815
    h: 2.2639
    b: 2.2454
 ***** round 8 *****
    f: 2.7917
    k: 2.7083
    j: 2.4815
    h: 2.0417
 ***** round 9 *****
    f: 2.7222
    k: 2.3380
    j: 2.1111
 ***** round 10 *****
    f: 1.9444
    k: 1.3889
****** STLR ******
f: 65.7500
j: 62.0000

Edit: here, just for fun:

It’s slightly interactive at:

The bar charts are… ummm, I don’t know what they mean. I did this matrix widget ages ago, please don’t look at the code!

1 Like

So we agree on score sum. I think the difference between my results and yours is that you treated blanks as scores of 0, whereas I treated them abstention.

1 Like

Yes I didn’t mean to say mine doesn’t agree with yours (I hadn’t noticed yours when I posted mine) – mine (and yours) don’t agree with the results posted above and shown in the spreadsheet.

This is all very confusing. According to the results posted by @Sara_Wolf the winner is In these results, was joint second last in the score phase of the STAR election and was nowhere near the run-off. There is also a separate thread declaring to be the winner, although reading down, that claim seems to have been retracted. But then also we have as the winner as above.

1 Like


Marylander and I both used the ballots from the spreadsheet and ran tabulations, and came out on top for both of us. (we did it separately, I hadn’t noticed his results when I posted mine) didn’t come out particularly close. But we did notice that the last ballot submitted was not included in the tabulations that had winning (and that ballot gave a 5 and a 0).

You are welcome to check my work in the two Codepens linked above.

I went ahead and got a few days ago based on preliminary information, simply because I hadn’t heard anything more and the deadline was approaching. Since the old forum is still working, and I haven’t gotten any final word, I’m just going to wait to finish up. I may not have a lot of time to work on it for a few days, so my hope is the old forum stays working for a bit more.

Edit: I relooked at the spreadsheet that looks like this;

The numbers at bottom are way off. I think they might be correct numbers, but with the names rearranged, ummmm… randomly? For instance, the numbers shown for add up to 50, not 36, should be 42 not 55, and should be 36 not 54, and should be 25 not 53. (again, this is before the final ballot which put at 55)

(one thing I find interesting: if you don’t count that last ballot as is the case above, remains the Condorcet winner and Cardinal Baldwin winner, however it is in 4th place as far as its Score tabulation, which means it does not win under STAR…)

Should be
(42, 36, 25, 33, 55, 47, 53, 54, 42, 50, 36)
So the numbers at the bottom are like a sorted version of this but with an extra 47 and without 25. The entries that weren’t in the runoff are listed in the order that they appeared on the ballot in the spreadsheet you screencapped. I can’t figure out how the two entries in the runoff were selected though.

This race might not be in STAR’s wheelhouse, as there are a lot of very similar entries.

1 Like

Sorry for all the confusion.
I accidentally set up the Google Forms wrong which scrambled the results and then asked Jay to help. I also had one of the in there twice and they got different scores, so we really should just redo this.

I think it’s safe to throw out a few options that didn’t get any support, and if I had veto I would likely veto the word Theory. It brings to mind all the reasons I would rather not be involved and has connotations of endless theorizing with no results. The emotional response I get there is exhaustion. That may be spilling out from other areas of my life as well, but it’s not a project name that inspires. Lol.

It sounds like CES would like to veto Electoral Science, the name, though the sentiment seems to hold in regards to STAR Voting, VSE, and CES as well.

The name Electoral Reform Forum was not loved by many, and saying Reform Forum out loud reminds me of trying to say rural juror, so…

I’d also like to add that we did have agreement to use STAR Voting for this poll, but that it’s a poll, not an election. Let’s keep building consensus until we have a good matched set of name+url that has broad support. Please post comments or additional ideas below. I still think a more creative name than we’ve come up with so far would be great, but this is all I’ve got.

Suggestions to keep or add: (Name - URL)
Equal Vote Electoral Reform Forum -
Equal Vote Forum -
Equal Vote Forum -
Electoral Research Forum -
Electoral Research Forum -
Electoforum -
Independent Electoral Research Forum -

Are folks down to meet this Wednesday at 7:30 pacific next week and each week till we are up and running? If so I’ve made a zoom for that:
Join Zoom Meeting

Meeting ID: 834 9541 1162
One tap mobile
+13462487799,83495411162# US (Houston)
+16699006833,83495411162# US (San Jose)

Dial by your location
+1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)
+1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
+1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)
+1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
+1 929 205 6099 US (New York)
+1 301 715 8592 US (Germantown)
Meeting ID: 834 9541 1162
Find your local number:

accidentally set up the Google Forms wrong which scrambled the results and then asked Jay to help.

No problem… We got the original ballots, and obviously there are people in the forums who can tabulate them. @Marylander and I got the correct results to everyone shortly after you posted them 5 days ago.

also had one of the in there twice and they got different scores, so we really should just redo this.

Well, @fsargent has (quite reasonably) said that CES isn’t going to like anything “electoral science” anyway. It really shouldn’t matter that it’s in there twice, because our method shouldn’t be thrown off by clones or irrelevant alternatives. There is also no reason to think that people changed their votes on that significantly because there were two. Neither of those two were front runners anyway. Even was above them.

It’s been nearly a month since our meeting when we decided to hold a vote on this. @fsargent has been patient and kept the old forum up.

I understand that you’re not fond of the word “theory.” I also have frustration with “endless theorizing”, but at the end of the day, it’s a theoretical subject to me. And in these forums, “Election Theory” is the category where 90% of the action is. “Voting theory” is arguably the name of the academic discipline, which is distinct from psephology, and is a subset of social choice theory: Who are the Academics in Psephology?. I haven’t heard a complaint from anyone else regarding the word theory, such as here: Should we move forward with [1]

My personal approach to the “endless theorizing” is to work to push the community in the direction of actually building things, and of using our own tools and approaches for practical purposes within the community. “Practice what you preach,” “eat your own dogfood,” and all that. And yeah, voting on the domain name is completely in that spirit. From my perspective, this little vote is a significant step away from just unproductive spinning on theory. We’re actually using our stuff, and that is good!

This is why I wanted to get involved, and why I saw this as a big opportunity to help move things forward. A new forum where we can (in due time!) integrate voting widgets and visualizers would be amazing, and could allow us to launch these tools more widely to other groups on the web and thus spread the word of “better voting methods.”

I’m a builder to the core, and while we’ve been waiting on the domain decision so we can go ahead and open the new forum[2], I’ve been doing a lot of work on such things as Codepens (note than Essenzia has jumped on board as well), just to try to start that ball rolling. These actually worked well for correctly tabulating the ballots for this very vote. This kind of stuff is, to me, the exact opposite of endless theorizing.

I can also see a day where we hold regular votes within the forum. Like to vote for “election method of the month” or whatever. There are all kinds of creative things we can do. The reasoning for this should be obvious. One, we get to use the methods we talk about. Two, we gradually move toward consensus, rather than so much going round and round.

I have to say, though, I am very uncomfortable with the idea of starting this new forum out by holding a vote, then rejecting that vote for no reason other than someone doesn’t like the results. That’s not a good look for a forum about voting. If that’s what we have to do, ok, but it certainly is against the spirit of where I hope this forum goes.

  1. Technically there was one complaint about “theory”, by rkjoyce. However, I believe his approach to the forums is, ummm … not reflective of the mainstream. :slight_smile:
  2. Most of the work is done, there is a NodeBB forum running on Heroku, but I do need a final decision on domain before continuing, at least if I don’t want to make it more work than it needs to be.

I wouldn’t be happy with anything with “equal vote” in. I’m not sure it would really mean anything to an outsider, and to an “insider” it looks like the Equal Vote Coalition, whereas I thought the forum was supposed to be a neutral thing not tied to any particular organisation.


There are now 18 votes in. The name Electoral Science Forum won by a lot with 71 points total. Voting Theory Forum had 63.

The results populate like this since google forms didn’t work to do the STAR algorithm with a 2 part poll. (My mistake.) Getting you guys an updated full tally would be a pain on my end. I did it by hand and then had Jay crunch the numbers last time.