[Election-Methods] Election-Methods Digest, Vol 37, Issue 47

[Juho]

On Jul 30, 2007, at 2:08 , ws at cs.brown.edu wrote:

> Quoting election-methods-request at lists.electorama.com:
>> Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 14:17:29 -0400
>> From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <abd at lomaxdesign.com>
>> Subject: Re: [Election-Methods] [EM] RV comments
>
>> By limiting ourselves to "competitive elections," we are limiting
>> ourselves, actually, to dysfunctional societies. We need to know  
>> that.
>>
>> And there is a conclusion we can make. If we care about improving the
>> function of society, we should worry that an election method that
>> works beautifully in a dysfunctional society might actually inhibit a
>> return to function. If the election method encourages polarization
>> and competition, it may prevent the society from healing.
>
> Nice point, but I'm afraid that moving society to be functional is  
> too much to
> hope for.
>
> Selfishness leading to socially suboptimal results is pervasive.  
> The famous
> "tragedy of the commons" happens at all scales, from village  
> commons to fishing
> stocks to global warming. Anecdotally, small communities seem to  
> often keep
> selfishness under control, but big communities have a much harder  
> time at it.
> Does anyone know of any societies of more than a million people  
> that are
> functional in this sense?

This is interesting and relevant. But the definition is still so  
flexible that I'm unable to give examples on any combination of big/ 
small, selfish/non-selfish. Some interesting factors are  
"facelessness", ability to relate to", "ability to understand",  
"ability to influence, "trust on the society's functionality",  
"personal links" etc. A well organized society (in many senses) may  
be able to push the numeric population threshold higher (= from  
families to villages and tribes and states).

>
>> Essentially, trying to maximize my personal gain in a Range election
>> by voting Approval style is short-sighted. If everyone does it,
>> everyone loses, on average.
>
> I agree with that statement.
>
> If a *random* subset of voters choose to vote strategically, I  
> agree that range
> is better than approval. What scares me about range is what happens  
> if there's
> a correlation between what people's opinions about the candidates  
> and their
> sincerity. What happens if functional and cooperative people vote  
> sincerely
> while dysfunctional and selfish people vote strategically? The  
> result would be
> society run by the most competitive people! I see several problems  
> with this:
>
> 1) I think that if we had a choice we'd give extra power to  
> cooperative people
> and less power to selfish people. But range does the opposite,  
> giving less
> power to the people who have society's long-term interests at heart!
>
> 2) Suppose the country is polarized about some issue and one side  
> does a better
> job of convincing its voters to vote strategically and therefore  
> wins. The other
> side will naturally be tempted to do more polarizing rhetoric next  
> time, thereby
> encouraging more strategic votes. So I think that by forcing people  
> to *act* in
> a polarized fashion (approval), you ironically reduce the need for  
> polarizing
> rhetoric!
>
> Summary: I believe it's better to force everyone to vote strategically
> (approval) than to give power to the candidate whose supporters  
> have the most
> black and white, polarized view of the world.
>
> ----
>
> General comment to everyone: remember that it is possible to  
> conduct a poll
> using a method that is different from the one used on election day.  
> So a range
> or Condorcet method can be used in a poll to guide approval towards  
> a good
> equilibrium.

I agree very much with the the mail. Here's one question though. Does  
this last paragraph intend to say that Approval would be more usable  
than Condorcet in real elections?

Juho

>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for  
> list info


		
___________________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Messenger - with free PC-PC calling and photo sharing. http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com