[EM] To Blake, re: standards

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Blake said:

The lesser-of-2-evils refers to a sense on the part of many voters that
they aren't voting for someone they particularly like; they are only
trying to keep someone they particularly dislike out of power. So the
best they can hope for out of an election is a lesser evil. From this
simple start, you derive various standards and criteria. To do this,
you add your own assumptions and standards. So you are no longer simply
responding to the voter's concern.

I reply:

I wouldn't say that I derive standards from that, or that I add
standards. The goal of getting rid of the LO2E problem _is_ the
standard. You say that I add my own assumptions, but I notice that
your definition of the LO2E problem sounds quite similar to mine.

So all you can claim is that my defensive strategy criteria don't
measure for the LO2E standard. Maybe that's what you're saying.
I didn't expect that claim, because I thought that it was transparently
obvious that the defensive strategy criteria measure compliance with
the LO2E standard, the one that we agree on.

FBC is about not having strategic incentive to vote someone over
your favorite.

You stated the LO2E problem in terms of a need to make sure a
candidate doesn't win. WDSC is about a majority being able to do
that without reversing a preference.

I'd say that those 2 criteria directly address the LO2E problem.

The only criteria of mine that I claim measure for the LO2E standard
are the defensive strategy criteria. Other criteria that I've proposed,
such as my IIAC, Regularity, Heritage, CC, etc. aren't claimed to do that.

The defensive strategy criteria include FBC, WDSC, SDSC, SFC, & GSFC,
and SARC. WDSC, SDSC, SFC & GSFC I call majority defensive strategy
criteria.

We removed SARC from the electionmethods website because of its
length and because it's more complicated than FBC, which it somewhat
duplicates in its purpose.

Blake continues:

There are other problems with your argument, though. Until plurality is
replaced, most arguments are going to be directed against it, but that
doesn't mean that its problems are the most important kind, as you
imply. Just that it's problems currently effect more people.

I reply:

If Plurality were the only method to have the LO2E problem, you
might have a point. Actually, methods such as IRV and your Ranked-Pairs
(margins) fail FBC & WDSC also. SSD & CSSD pass all of the majority
defensive strategy criteria, however.

So the LO2E problem is retained by some not-so-good rank method
proposals.

You can predict that some other standard will become more important
to people later, but for one thing it's a worthless predicition unless
you can say what that other standard will be, and why it will become
more important than LO2E. Besides, all I said was that LO2E is the
important reason why we want a better voting system. If we later
get a voting system free of the LO2E problem, then maybe a different
standard will become the guide for how we want to fix the voting
system. But you're getting a little ahead of yourself, Blake.

Like most people who express dissatisfaction with Plurality, I
want to get rid of the LO2E problem. That also means that I don't
want a "reform" voting system that retains that problem.

Blake continues:

But actually there's good reason to believe that reformers aren't
primarily concerned with the lesser-of-2-evils problem. The biggest
single-winner campaign is for IRV, and this is because reform advocates
often become obsessed with quite different strategy problems than the
lesser of 2 evils (as least as you understand it).

I reply:

Actually, the IRVies constantly claim that IRV gets rid of the LO2E
problem. They're talking about the same LO2E problem. Everyone knows
what it is. That's why you defined it pretty much the same way I do.

They're mistaken about their claim that IRV gets rid of the LO2E
problem, but they always prominently feature that claim, showing]
that LO2E is important to them too.

Well I have to admit that Jim Lindsay, an IRVie, does have a
different meaning for the LO2E problem. He feels that there's no
problem unless it influences how people vote.

When he claimed that, by his meaning, IRV doesn't have the problem,
he must not have heard about the experience in Australia.

Blake continues:

They may be wrong,
but it was you who invoked the ad populum argument.

I reply:

My point was that reform advocates talk a lot about the LO2E problem,
not that they understand the workings of their proposed method, IRV.
CVD and other IRVies claim that IRV gets rid of the LO2E problem
because they know that problem is important to people.

Your standard, you once said, is to elect the candidate most likely
to be the absolute best. But most would probably agree that there's
no such thing as the best candidate, in an absolute sense. Some
candidates are best for some people, other candidates are best for
other people. Looking for the candidate most likely to be the
absolute best, you're chasing an apparition.

Mike Ossipoff





_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.