[EM] Egg or Chicken.

[Kristofer Munsterhjelm]

On 12/14/2011 09:59 PM, David L Wetzell wrote:
> if we push hard for the use of American Proportional Representation
> it'll give third parties a better chance to win seats and they will
> prove great labs for experimentation with electoral reform.

You keep on saying that. We can keep stating our priors until the cows 
come home, but that won't do anything. Instead we should find some 
information that would resolve the uncertainty.

What kind of information would resolve the difference? What observation 
would make you think IRV is more likely to pull harder than STV pushes, 
or that advanced voting methods are so good that IRV is a net loss?

You have suggested using Bayesian regret as a heuristic. I have been 
away for some time. I haven't replied to your Bayesian regret post, and 
I will likely be more idle in the future than I am now, as well. But all 
that said, if you want to use Bayesian regret as a heuristic, how much 
weight would you put on it? If the improvement of IRV over Plurality is 
100%, how much do you need for the advanced methods over IRV? 50%? 100%? 
1000%?

> This is also a good reason to strategically support IRV, since we can
> trust that with changes, there'll be more scope for experimentation and
> consideration of multiple alternatives to FPTP.

Only if STV pushes harder than IRV pulls. It doesn't in Australia. You 
disclaim Australia because you say the data can't be generalized, and 
you consider repeals of IRV to be merely victories by Plurality 
advocates won by incomplete or flawed presentation, whereas incomplete 
presentation in the other direction is simply "marketing" and thus 
nothing to be concerned about.

So, in summary: I don't trust that IRV will give the necessary changes. 
You do. We can keep on stating our claims backed by those positions, but 
as long as we disagree on a more fundamental level, those claims won't 
do anything but highlight our own positions yet again.