[EM] Voting reform statement

[Jameson Quinn]

2011/8/15 Jonathan Lundell <jlundell at pobox.com>

> On Aug 15, 2011, at 11:58 AM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
>
> It's true that I might agree to a statement if all it said were "We believe
>> that approval is marginally superior to plurality" (thought to the extent
>> that I agreed, I don't think it's enough better to merit any energy in
>> advocating it). But that's not what you're proposing. Is it?
>>
>>
> No. I'm proposing saying that, in different words, along with a number of
> other things with which you haven't disagreed. Including that we believe
> that approval is a step towards systems which we see as significantly
> superior to plurality. (Remember - just as approval is 2-level Range,
> approval is also 2-level Schulze or what have you, and also
> no-intercandidate-preference SODA, etc.) So, either propose some specific
> change in the language relating to approval, or bring some other objection,
> or both.
>
>
> The statement says, in effect, "Range is good, IRV is bad". I disagree.
>
> Perhaps I'm the only one, in which case it's inconsequential that I'm not
> aboard.
>
> (What Schulze are we talking about? I associate the name with a
> Condorcet-cycle-breaking method.)
>
> It doesn't say that. It says, we can agree that range is at least
marginally better than plurality, we cannot agree on that for IRV. I would
happily sign a separate statement saying IRV is better than plurality, but I
think including that here would lose too many.

Schulze is just my default example of a complex but good Condorcet
tiebreaker. And if you run it with only two-level ballots, it is equivalent
to approval.

If you want to suggest rewording to make it clear that you're only giving
the weakest possible endorsement to Range, then go ahead. But remember, any
amount you weaken the "these are good systems" section, weakens it for all
of the listed systems. Because we are not going to get many people to sign
on to a statement that makes distinctions between those systems.

Or say clearly that you can't sign the statement in any form, and we'll stop
worrying about you. I want this to get as much support as possible, but I
know that I'll never get everyone.

Again, I personally agree with much of what you are saying. Approval does
force strategic thinking on the voter, more than many other options. (That's
also true of Range, but not of MJ, so you shouldn't generalize to "rating
systems".) But this is not about just me.

JQ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20110815/2ff2ad3a/attachment-0004.htm>