[EM] Fw: Two simple alternative voting methods that are fairer than IRV/STV and lack most IRV/STV flaws

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 02:28 AM 1/21/2010, robert bristow-johnson wrote:

>On Jan 20, 2010, at 12:04 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
>
>>At 12:52 AM 1/18/2010, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>>
>>>yes, it's debatable and, since there are 3 different methods all
>>>lifting up different declared winners, it's subjective.
>>
>>Well, it's subjective without preference strength information.
>
>the debate *might* go into the direct if whatever "preference
>strength information" is subjective or not.

Once again, narrow interpretation believing that it trumps broader 
interpretation.

"preference strength information" was here this referring to one of 
two possibilities:

Expressed preference strength. Only certain ballots allow this, but 
if it is allowed, this information can be objectively used. Is the 
information "subjective." Yes, in the sense that it represents a 
subjective judgment by the voters, but isn't that what all votes are? 
The *analysis* can be objective. Since we were discussing various 
methods of analyzing preference information provided on ballots, we 
are talking about analysis, not the individual voter process.

Real preference strength. This can generally only be used in judging 
voting systems in simulations, where the preference strength is 
assumed, typically using models of voter preference, varied randomly 
according to some sensible distribution. There are possibilities 
where real preference strength can be measured, typically by setting 
up some cost to voting. A very relevant example is the cost of 
actually voting, the cost of turnout. If voters have low preference 
strength, they are less likely to turn out. Therefore turnout is a 
factor which indicates preference strength in real elections. We know 
that when voters have a high preference strength between two 
candidates, and there is a special cost to turnout, as in a special 
election or special runoff, voters turn out in unusual numbers. There 
are other proposed ways of increasing the cost of voting, most 
particularly the Clarke tax or variations on that model. This isn't 
the place to explore them, but only to note that preference strength 
was often neglected in developing and studying voting systems, on the 
bogus argument that it could not be measured or accurately expressed. 
That was a narrow understanding, substantially incorrect and even to 
the extent it was correct, it was misapplied. By people of the 
stature of Arrow....

>candidate for mayor in Burlington VT in 2009, who also turned out to
>be the Condorcet winner in an IRV election, is named "Andy
>Montroll".  last name "Montroll".  with two L's no S nor E.
>
>if it were me, i would eventually be annoyed if someone consistently
>mispronounced or mispelled my name, even after the correct name has
>been offered earlier.

Montroll. Chalk Montrose up to my age. Note: in a debate, you gain 
one point if you generously and courteously correct a minor error by 
your opponent. You lose ten points if you try to impeach your 
opponent for a minor error, either directly or indirectly, as by 
making a big fuss about it to underscore it, particularly with 
sarcasm or countersinking.