[Election-Methods] RE : Re: peer-reviewed work that is critical of IRV

[Jan Kok]

> So: how could we determine a true consensus of election methods
> experts, or something even broader than that? Hint: Mr.
> Green-Armytage is one of the co-inventors of what might pull it off,
> though he mostly focused on it as an election method, whereas my own
> primary interest has been in NGO, peer-association structure.
>
> I've been thinking for some time that we should form an Election
> Methods Free Association, or Interest Group, and set it up as an
> FA/DP organization.

I think this is worth considering.

There are currently five of us in the Range Voting FA. I assume all of
us would join EMFA. I think we could quickly recruit about three more
from the EM list.

However, an FA isn't very interesting if all its members are on the
same "side". So, can we get any IRV supporters or FairVote-affiliated
people to join the FA? Well, I can think of two people on the the EM
list who have supported IRV. Maybe we could get them to join. And I
know two FairVote affiliated people who I _might_ be able to persuade
to join.

It would probably help to have a neutral party be the trustee - the
owner of the central forum. I know an election methods expert who is
respected by both sides. Again _maybe_ I could persuade him to be
trustee.

But first we need to work out some other details.

What would we use as the central forum, and where would the official
membership and proxy assignment data be stored? Again, I think
neutrality is important.

> The DP part of it allows *wide* participation --
> if you could get election methods experts to join -- and efficiency
> -- most of them wouldn't have to actively participate but could
> essentially vet someone to vote for them, subject, of course, to
> their review, as any good DP system will do if the client wants to
> monitor the actions of the proxy.
>
> The FA would not issue statements like "Election Methods Experts
> Reject IRV." That would be contrary to FA traditions. Rather, what we
> would see would be something like "97% of election methods experts,
> qualified according to the peer-qualification rules of the
> Accreditation Caucus,

Now there I think you have opened a large can of worms.

1. How do you impartially determine who is an election method expert?!

2. Is it proper to for an FA to report on matters decided by a caucus?
Critics of the results could say that the caucus is biased - and
perhaps it is. If it is proper for the FA to report results from a
caucus, then why couldn't it report anything that is a "fact". E.g.
"FairVote posted a new article on their website today stating that IRV
is a good source of dietary fiber."

How do you define a caucus, Abd? I have generally thought of a caucus
as an independent organization in gestation. Perhaps it still uses
some of the host FA's resources, such as ISP services. That definition
is rather fuzzy. So where do you draw the line between when it is
proper for an FA to report caucus results and when it is not?

> rejected IRV as an election reform, and of the
> general interest group membership, the vote was 83% in the same
> direction. The majority and minority reports, including all received
> comments and poll results, are at [URL]."
>
> This, issued officially by the designated secretary of the
> Association,

Is the secretary essentially a robot, following very strict,
unambiguous rules about what to report and when? If so, what are the
rules? If not, how can a secretary be selected who would be acceptable
to most of the members from all sides?

> is merely a fact, reported by an expert on the fact: the
> percentage of vote. It would be a primary source for Wikipedia,
> again, if it were properly framed. It would actually be a better
> source, if it truly had broad membership, than any individual
> peer-reviewed journal. It's easy to knock over a single editorial
> board, sometimes. Pretty hard to knock over a consensus of experts in
> a field. Trick is to measure that.

Cheers,
- Jan