New home for this forum/community

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.


I went ahead and got

If you already got go ahead and use it. It’s generic enough to work with any name and we can create a redirect if we pick another url later.

This all seems a bit crazy to me. How much time do we have? Since we have the URL, let’s just do another vote for the name if we have time and it isn’t a huge hassle.

I propose adding to the list lol. Probably I missed the meeting where we talked about the system we would use to decide the election. But I’m fine with STAR or Range or Condorcet or Approval or whatever. As long as it gets a name and we make the new forum.

I don’t think the name should have an implicit association with an existing organization, and I’m fine with the word theory. If it were up to my decision we would move forward with since that seems to have more consensus above as the winner of the last election.

But it isn’t up to me. Why don’t we have a plurality vote between moving ahead with and doing a re-vote, since that seems to be the main contention?

1 Like

Sara, we’ve already done plenty of work to make sure you can just export the ballots to CSV, paste them into a CodePen, and see results under a whole lot of different tabulation schemes, including Score and STAR.

The numbers you give above are not correct.

Parses CSV into ballot format:
Processes ballots:

I really think, and there are many comments here in agreement, that the domain is the one to decide first, not the name. Mixing them up like this is just a nightmare and leads to ambiguity.

However, on the name, here are results. Voting theory is not a particularly distant 2nd to Electoral Science Forum. (and of course we can’t use Electoral Science Forum)

****** Score ******
Electoral Science Forum: 61 (3.3889)
Voting Theory Forum: 53 (2.9444)
Electoral Reform Forum: 46 (2.5556)
Electoral Theory Forum: 40 (2.2222)
Equal Vote Forum: 32 (1.7778)
Equal Vote Coalition Forum: 22 (1.2222)
****** STAR ******
Electoral Science Forum: 10
Voting Theory Forum: 7

****** Pairwise wins ******
Electoral Science Forum : 5
Voting Theory Forum: 4
Electoral Reform Forum: 3
Electoral Theory Forum: 2
Equal Vote Forum: 1
Equal Vote Coalition Forum: 0

This is how the two CodePens do it (they convert candidates in a, b, c etc), with a bit more information:

a: Electoral Science Forum
b: Equal Vote Forum
c: Electoral Reform Forum
d: Voting Theory Forum
e: Electoral Theory Forum
f: Equal Vote Coalition Forum
a[5] b[3] c[0] d[2] e[4] f[1]
a[3] b[1] c[2] d[4] e[5] f[0]
a[2] b[0] c[1] d[5] e[4] f[0]
a[1] b[4] c[2] d[5] e[0] f[3]
a[4] b[3] c[3] d[5] e[4] f[2]
a[0] b[3] c[5] d[5] e[1] f[4]
a[4] b[0] c[3] d[5] e[3] f[0]
a[5] b[0] c[3] d[5] e[4] f[2]
a[5] b[3] c[4] d[3] e[4] f[2]
a[5] b[1] c[4] d[3] e[2] f[0]
a[4] b[5] c[3] d[0] e[1] f[4]
a[5] b[0] c[0] d[0] e[0] f[0]
a[3] b[1] c[5] d[1] e[1] f[2]
a[3] b[1] c[1] d[2] e[1] f[0]
a[5] b[0] c[3] d[2] e[1] f[0]
a[2] b[2] c[3] d[1] e[1] f[2]
a[5] b[4] c[3] d[0] e[0] f[0]
a[0] b[1] c[1] d[5] e[4] f[0]

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

****** Pairwise wins ******
a: 5
d: 4
c: 3
e: 2
b: 1
f: 0
****** Score ******
a: 61 (3.3889)
d: 53 (2.9444)
c: 46 (2.5556)
e: 40 (2.2222)
b: 32 (1.7778)
f: 22 (1.2222)
****** STAR ******
a: 10
d: 7
****** Cardinal Baldwin ******
 ***** round 1 *****
    a: 3.3889
    d: 2.9444
    c: 2.5556
    e: 2.2222
    b: 1.7778
    f: 1.2222
 ***** round 2 *****
    a: 3.3889
    d: 2.6528
    c: 2.3056
    e: 1.8472
    b: 1.2500
 ***** round 3 *****
    a: 3.2731
    d: 2.5417
    c: 1.8380
    e: 1.4722
 ***** round 4 *****
    a: 3.2639
    d: 2.4722
    c: 1.7037
 ***** round 5 *****
    a: 2.7778
    d: 1.9444
****** STLR ******
a: 69.7500
d: 57.5000
1 Like

Yeah, and if we can’t have Electoral Science due to a veto by CES, then it’s reasonable to stick with Voting Theory Forum. But I think it’s possible that if we eliminated the unacceptable candidates and did a re-vote that the result would change. I’m OK with a revote or moving ahead. I really think we should settle it with a plurality vote, and if someone doesn’t care either way, they can just not cast a ballot.

That sure sounds like a flaw in the voting system if true. Isn’t that the whole point of this stuff?

If you remove the unacceptable candidates, the result is and “voting theory forum.” Score winner, STAR winner, Condorcet winner, for both.

If you normalize (i.e. maximize) the ballots prior to re-tabulating, same thing.

This is not plurality. Eliminating a candidate after the vote shouldn’t make a difference, especially not on a vote where we can see that the STAR winner and the Condorcet winner agree.

I’ll admit, right now I’m a bit triggered by the idea of people not accepting results that don’t go their way. We, of all people, should find this idea deeply offensive. All the more so if we are using voting methods that we are claiming should help avoid this very thing. We should be better than this.

I’ve spent too much time on this and I’m reconsidering whether I want to work with EqualVote. Honestly, I have lost confidence in their ability to do what is supposed to be their expertise, and do it with integrity. There were a whole string of errors (including outrageously mistabulated “results” that coincidentally made their unliked option lose), it took way too long, and using their own mistakes as excuses to overturn the results just doesn’t jibe well with the philosophy behind the community I was hoping to help build. This is simply not the way to get a new voting forum off the ground.


Yes you’re probably right. I was just thinking that now that people are aware of how others voted, they are liable to alter their voting strategies a bit. But on second thought, depending on the system, the results should be very robust against that kind of thing. I think you’re right anyway, this should not be this complicated and we should just move forward with the highest rated acceptable candidate, i.e.

So I’m just stating here pretty definitively that that’s my opinion: we should just move forward. I think the number of people who participated in the vote and agree with that opinion make up at least one third of the total. I’m not sure how many people are indifferent other than perhaps @psephomancy or who are against moving forward other than @Sara_Wolf. Honestly judging from the tallies it seems reasonable that we are split basically three ways, six each, as to who is for, who is against, and who is indifferent to moving forward. But it is also the case that most people (12/18=2/3 of people) rated as above average, i.e. at least 3/5. 8/18 people rated as a 5/5.

As @RobBrown mentions, is the Score winner, the Condorcet winner, and the STAR winner in the case where we are not allowed to use Electoral Science Forum, which I think is the case. If Electoral Science Forum had been excluded from the candidates to begin with, it is likely that the moderate ratings for would have either remained the same or increased.

In total I think there is a very good case to be made for going forward as a group, and if it were put up to a vote I would vote in favor of moving forward. Of course, I’m “biased,” I suppose. I rated as a 5/5.


This would be the case under any election with any voting method. The only methods that pass independence of irrelevant alternatives are approval, score, and median based rated methods like majority judgement. However even in those methods having extra options can change how people decide to vote so while those methods pass IIA, the voters using them don’t.

1 Like

Good voting systems are supposed to reduce this issue. We all know that they don’t eliminate it 100%.

But when you have a set of ballots, as we do, where the Condorcet winner agrees with the STAR winner (and the Cardinal Baldwin winner, STLR winner, and so on) you can be pretty sure that irrelevant alternatives didn’t affect the result.

Regardless, we chose STAR as the tabulation system ahead of time. Let’s remember, the person that wants a revote is the representative of EqualVote, who are advocates for STAR. Their own web site makes lots of claims about immunity to the issues you note: “STAR Voting eliminates vote splitting and the spoiler effect, so it’s highly accurate with any number of candidates in the race” and “It’s all about the idea that we should be able to vote our conscience, our votes should never be wasted, and our elections should accurately reflect the will of the people.”

1 Like

Poll results so far.

Wow. This is all feeling really hostile all of a sudden. I’m just trying to build consensus and find a good name. Starting to regret volunteering to help here.

I asked for new ideas. Does anyone have any?

Maybe with all this discussion and also some new information people’s opinions have evolved? When I first made the first POLL it was made clear it was to be a STAR poll and also a poll, not a vote.