[EM] Unifying behind range is tactically necessary (including for AV & Condorcet advocates)

[Warren Smith]

> >Rob Lanphier re the Center for Range Voting:
>If you had the kind of backing that CVD has, I might believe you.
However, in terms of popular voting reforms, only CVD can make the claim
that they've got the political organization and the momentum to follow
through right now.  CAV/AAV is making encouraging progress, but it's
nowhere close to CVD in raw political power, as near as I can tell.
That's not to say that I think the CVD is right (I don't; I think
they're dead wrong).  Only that CVD is the only one that can credibly
throw their clout around the way that you are right now.

--unfortunately, there is a large amount of truth to your remarks here...
BUT we have to do something about it since the CVD ("center for voting and democracy,"
a biased-pro-IRV group) are "dead wrong" as you put it.

Now the angle we can exploit, is the fact, supported by indisputable data up the wazoo,
that IRV (which the CVD is pushing) just leads to more 2-party domination.
And the fact (also supported by data VERY clearly) that range voting
leads to a LOT more votes for third parties than does approval and (even more so) 
than does plurality.  (Cannot really directly compare with ranked ballot methods since
no notion of "how many votes you got.")  And the fact, that plenty of Condorcet
methods will lead to 2-party domination.  Adam Tarr on RV-list has been arguing
that Condorcet methods that incorporate both of these enhancements: (1)
"winning votes" not "margins" and (2) equalities permitted in vote-rankings
("Gore=Nader>Bush=Buchanan") plausibly defeat my arguments the Condorcet methods
will lead to 2-party domination.  (My arguments had mostly assumed full-rankings
with only ">" not "=".)  I think Tarr is plausibly right on that,
but I also think advanced Condorcet methods  are so complicated it may not
be impossible to confidently predict what will happen re 2-party dominance.
That is an advantage of simple-to-understand methods, whose strategy can be wholy understood, 
like Range: you can answer such questions with good confidence.   (Condorcet
optimum voter strategy remains uncharacterized after over 200 years...)

OK. What does this tell us?  Does it tell us "range is a superior system to
all Condorcet systems?"  NO!  But it DOES tell us, that range is a superior
system FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF ALL USA THIRD PARTIES right now and in the
forseeable future.

Those parties would be insanely suicidal to support either plurality or IRV or
approval when they could have range.  It might be sensible for them to support
Condorcet, but this is a gamble with their life.  Also the main voter-objection
to range in my poll was its "complexity."  That suggests the best 
Condorcet methods (much more complex) will have a significantly harder time getting implemented,
so even if 3rd parties wanted Condorcet, they should realize it is way harder for them
to get it - to save their lives soon and with highest chance of success, they
need to line up behind range voting.  So: the US third parties have to support
range, and they will support range if their leaders are brought into contact with the data.

OK? with me so far?   Now.  If we get endorsements form all the third parties for Range Voting,
then we immediately have a unified nonegligible force for voting reform, which dwarfs the CVD
and is big enough to accomplish, e.g. putting ballot-initiative
propositions onto state ballots.  CVD is not big enough to do that.

OK? You follow?  Now, the plan I just said, represents progress.
Not only does it represent progress toward range voting, it also represents
progress towards approval voting, and towards Condorcet voting, indirectly.
Specifically, once a "get range" movement gets going, there will then be a lot
of public debate about voting system issues, resulting in more progress towards
your stated educational mission, in terms of raw numbers of people exposed to it, 
than you will ever probably  accomplish without my plan, and sooner too.  

OK?  So we are on the same team in a big way - or 
should be if you'd quit being obstructionist. :)

>robla: Convince me that Range Voting is superior to Condorcet, and I'll be an
>advocate for Range Voting.  I've made a jump once... but I'll be very, very difficult to
>convince.

--I probably cannot completely convince you range is superior.
I just want to convince you that unifying behind range voting is a hugely good
tactical idea including for Condorcet proponents.  And I think even you can see range
is a huge improvement on what we've got, whereas condorcet will be a small
improvement over range (comparatively speaking) if at all.

>robla: [accuses WDS of being] "condescending as hell::  Let me paraphrase: "please
continue to discuss whatever silly little things you want to, but oh, by
the way, stop actually advocating what you believe in and unite behind
what *I* believe in".  Let me respond:  "ummmm....no".

--WDS:
I apologize.  I did not intend at all to be condescending.  Let me be clear.
EM's mission of studying and debating every possible voting system and
of educating all, is a good idea and I by no means want it to cease, nor
do I in any way have a low opinion of that mission.  At all.  Nor did I ever.

However, at the same time, I want to actually get someplace.
The right way for us all to get someplace, is to unify behind range voting.
Debating forever won't do that.

Range voting is very robustly the best among about 30 systems tried including
a couple condorcet systems  according to my giant
comparative Bayesian regret study in 2000.  OK, maybe you can attack that.
Maybe you can say I did not put in your favorite system or favorite
voting strategy.  (Some of the systems I am being attacked for, were not even 
invented at the time I did the study.)   Those attacks don't matter:
The bottom line is, you should now be convinced range is pretty damn good - even
if not the tippy top best among all possible systems ever proposed r
that ever will be proposed, it clearly is in the top few percent - as far 
as quality is concerned, and it
does not seem to exhibit any major exploitable weaknesses since
it scored top in EVERY one of 144 different parameter settings.

Also range is among the best in terms of simplicity.

Also range (with single digit scores)
can be adopted right now on every voting machine in the USA without
any modification necessary.  The worst you can say is on some machine types
it would be inconvenient.  (And this adoptibility is false for IRV & Condorcet.)

Also range is TACTICALLY THE BEST in terms of the PLAN of
appealing to US 3rd parties!!!!

So you have to unify behind range.
I'm trying to make it clear as I can.  It seems obvious to me,
so I am sorry if I seem impatient.  We have to act FAST because 
we need to unify the throd parties, and we need to go for Iowa 08.
If you delay a single day, then that delays the whole plan a single day.  
Delay 6 months, and that may be enough to kill the  whole plan.
Etc.  So yes, I am impatient.

So I am telling everybody it is in their best interest, and the USA's
best interest, and the world's best interest, to join CRV and its range-promoting
mission.   And if you think I am being too messianic, or am
not competent enough, or am not moneyed enough, etc, then get off
your damned butt and do something to improve that problem, instead of just
whining about it.  You can only do something about that, if you are part of  
the effort.   I can see a two-pronged role developing here where CRV
spearheads the drive for range voting, while EM spearheads the ongoing
project of debating, theoretically researching, and educating.
I am quite certain there are many people more competent than I in many
areas - probably many of them on EM - and I would very much like them to participate.
Hell, I'd very much like those more competent people to be doing it instead of
me, but the problem is, so far I evidently have not been able to rely on such hopes,
(since nobody previously founded the CRV... and the CDV is going in the wrong direction...) 
so I decided to try myself.
We are now embryonic.  If you get in early that enhances your chance to play a bigger 
role in all the future.

Warren D Smith