[EM] simplcity of range v condorcet

[Dave Ketchum]

"trusted expert" is the heart of this debate.  Such do not deserve to
exist except as a result of having demonstrated being experts.

DWK

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 21:19:22 -0700 Rob Lanphier wrote:

 > On Sat, 2005-08-13 at 23:48 -0400, Dave Ketchum wrote:
 >
 >>On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 17:35:19 -0700 Rob Lanphier wrote:
 >>
 >>>In fairness, the specification for counting votes is something that
 >>>voters will probably care about, and it is one of the biggest
 >>>liabilities of Condorcet.  Part of the uphill battle for Condorcet
 >>>advocates is to convince people that even if they don't understand
 >>>exactly how it works, it's still a better system (the tactic I've
 >>>usually advocated is endorsement from trusted smart people).
 >>>
 >>Seems to me that the above unreasonably penalizes Condorcet.
 >>
 >
 > I don't make the rules in this world; I'm just pointing out the way
 > things are.
 >
 >
 >>We care not how complex the implementation of the counting program may be,
 >>so long as it does its task in reasonable time and reasonable expense AND
 >>that what it accomplishes is describable to voters.
 >>
 >
 > I should amend this.  I don't think we in any way try to obfuscate
 > things, or stop trying to come up with ways of making this all seem very
 > simple and straightforward.  I'm saying that there are going to be some
 > people who just won't get it, won't try to get it, but will trust the
 > advice of a trusted expert.  Different people have different learning
 > styles and ways of working in the world.  Some people want to understand
 > for themselves, some people want to hear it from someone they trust.
 >
 > Part of the reason why I'm such a stickler about accuracy and
 > self-reflection among Condorcet advocates is because I'm hoping we can
 > get a reputation as fair-minded experts as opposed to "true believers"
 > who warp the facts in order to sell Condorcet.  So, hopefully, when
 > people are looking for someone they trust to sort all of this stuff out,
 > they trust us.
 >
 >
 >>Mostly this program is counting the pairs, to declare the best of all to
 >>be winner.
 >>
 >>When there is a near tie there is more effort, but major voter concern is
 >>that we only get here on true near ties, and resolve such based on the
 >>votes, and not some human's preference.
 >>
 >>"endorsement from trusted smart people" is NOT something we should claim.
 >>  We SHOULD have a description of what the counting does that is both true
 >>and understandable without depending on some nonbelievable claim of
 >>trustworthiness.
 >>
 >
 > It's only as believable as the person making the claim.  We really can't
 > ignore this tactic.
 >
 >
 >>>The rules for voters are much simpler for Condorcet than under Range.
 >>>Under Range, failure to employ some counterintuitive strategies will
 >>>lead to a weakening of your vote (i.e. you should pretend it's
 >>>approval).  Under Condorcet, sincerity is almost always optimal, which
 >>>is tough to beat from a simplicity standpoint
 >>>
 >>These words please me more.
 >>
 >
 > Aiming to please ;-)
 >
 > Rob

-- 
   davek at clarityconnect.com    people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
   Dave Ketchum   108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY  13827-1708   607-687-5026
             Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
                   If you want peace, work for justice.