[EM] Yet another IRV problem

[Anthony Simmons]

>> From: Forest Simmons <fsimmons at pcc.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [EM] Yet another IRV problem

>> On Wed, 16 May 2001, Anthony Simmons wrote:

>> <snip>

>> > It's all a big mystery to most people.

>> That turned on a light for me. It suddenly dawned on me
>> that the reason that all of those FairVote people I talked
>> to prefer IRV over any other method (or suggested
>> modification of IRV) is that they made a mental investment
>> in understanding IRV, which was an agonizing process. When
>> they finally were able to hold the IRV process in their
>> brains long enough for it to make sense, they had some
>> sense of relief that they would never have to think that
>> hard about anything for the rest of their lives.

Yep, that sounds like the situation, all right.  Remember --
you're a mathematician.  You like solving problems.  Most
people don't.  They don't appreciate problems.  They
appreciate solutions.

Look at the number of people involved in political rhetoric
mailing lists -- just the general rant and argument variety.
They are innumerable (enumerable and denumerable), and many
of them are heavily populated.  But how many lists are the
devoted to election methods?

The difference?  Political lists satisfy the need for
answers, the simpler the answer the better.  The Election
Methods list satisfies the need for understanding of
complexity.

>> Hence their leader's remark that he prefers IRV over all
>> other methods, even if supposedly superior methods were to
>> become politically viable in the future.

>> In spite of my attempts to explain other methods and their
>> advantages, he seemed to completely tune out during all
>> examples and explanations. Not once did he ask an
>> intelligent question or make any kind of remark to
>> indicate that he understood the relative merits of an
>> alternate method even when applied to a specific example.

The important thing is the need for an answer.  The process
of forming the requisite attitudes is _not_ rational.  It is
based on such things as cognitive consistency and group
dynamics.  We've all seen the strategies used in political
advertising; that alone should illuminate the process.

>> I think he and others like him believe that they already
>> did the required amount of thinking, and (thank goodness)
>> Arrow's Impossibility Theorem is a universal excuse from
>> further thought.

If it weren't that, there's always liberals/Republicans/
Southerners/foreigners/poor people/wealthy/Communists/robber
barons.

>> Forest