[EM] ignoring "strength of opinion"

[rob brown]

On 12/1/05, Steve Eppley <seppley at alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> Briefly replying to two people's comments:
>
> Rob Brown wrote:
> -snip-
> > I believe that condorcet elections intentionally ignore "strength
> > of opinion" information for the exact same practical reason. Since
> > there is no way to avoid collecting some strength of opinion
> > information (while still collecting the information we *do* need),
> > we have to consciously, intentionally ignore that information in
> > the tabulation. This is NOT a bad thing.
> -snip-
>
> I agree with both of Rob's messages so far on this topic
> except for one sentence, which I've included in this
> excerpt above.  He wrote that collecting some strength of
> opinion info cannot be avoided, but I see no strength info
> in votes that are orderings of the alternatives.
>
> Jan Kok wrote:
> -snip-
> > Thus, primary elections should be considered an important target for
> > voting reform efforts.  Better voting methods used in primaries can
> > lead to selection of better candidates for those parties that use the
> > better methods, leading to better chances for winning in the general
> > election.
> -snip-
>
> I disagree.  It's the poor methods used in general
> elections that create the need to grow large coalitions
> each "supporting" one candidate. (I placed quotes around
> the word "supporting" because I mean it only in the
> relative sense of the word, not some absolute sense.)  This
> need leads to two large parties each nominating only one
> candidate per office.  How can that provide enough
> competition to be the least corrupt centrist?
>
> These days, primary voters assign great weight to the
> expected ability of candidates to raise campaign donations
> for the general election.  Without public funding or
> cheap/free air time in general elections, I believe
> tinkering with primaries won't have enough of an effect to
> be worth working hard for.
>
> Also, not enough about voters' preferences on the issues
> can be learned from votes "for" one of two viable
> candidates or from votes in partisan primaries. (Sadly,
> this doesn't prevent winners from claiming mandates for
> their entire platforms.)
>
> So, I hope the focus will be on improving the methods used
> in the general elections.  And as a means to this end,
> encouraging organizations large and small to use such
> methods in their decision-making procedures.
>
> --Steve
>
> ----
> election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20051201/7d4fb83e/attachment-0003.htm>