[EM] Has this idea been considered?

[Russ Paielli]

Let me just elaborate on my concerns about complexity. Most of you probably
know most of this already, but let me just try to summ it up and put things
in perspective.

Some of the participants on this list are advanced mathematicians, and they
have been discussing these matters for years. As you all know, the topic of
election methods and voting systems can get very complicated. As far as I
know, there is still no consensus even on this list on what is the best
system. If there is no consensus here, how can you expect to get a consensus
among the general public?

But let's suppose a consensus is reached here on the EM list. What happens
next? You need to generate public awareness, which is a major task. As far
as the general public is concerned, there is no problem with the voting
system per se. Voters vote, and the votes are counted. The candidate with
the most votes wins. What else do you need?

So let's say we somehow manage to get widespread public awareness of the
deficiencies of the current plurality system. Then what? Eventually, and
actual change has to go through Congress. Try to imagine Senator Blowhard
grilling the experts on the proposed rules of their favorite system. It
would certainly be good for one thing: fodder for Jon Stewart and Steven
Colbert!

Also, consider the fierce opposition that would develop from any group that
thinks they would suffer. And who might that be? How about the two major
parties! Do you think they would have the power to stop it? For starters,
they would probably claim that any "complicated" vote transfer algorithm
cannot be used because it is not in the Constitution.

I realize that IRV has garnered considerable support and success. I suppose
that's a tribute to the "open-mindedness" of ultra-leftist enclaves such as
SF and Berkeley. On the other hand, it just goes to show that a
fundamentally flawed system can be sold in such enclaves.

Sorry if I'm coming across as negative. I'm just trying to be realistic. I
am a Republican, and I got interested again in the whole EM thing because of
what I see happening in the Republican primary, with so many candidates to
split the vote and so many potential voters seemingly oblivious to the
problem. I wish there were a good, viable solution, but I just don't see it
happening in the foreseeable future.

--Russ P.


On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Dave Ketchum <davek at clarityconnect.com>wrote:

> Russ and Andrew each offer important thoughts.
>
> Russ is right that overly complex methods will likely get rejected - and I
> agree they deserve such, though Approval is not near to a reasonable limit.
>
> And Andrew is right that voters can accept something beyond Approval.
>  Reviewing the steps as voters might think of them:
> .     Approval is simply being able to voye for more than one, as if equals
> - easy to vote and easy to implement, but makes you wish for more.
> .     Condorcet adds ranking, so you can vote for unequals such as Good
> that you truly like and Soso as second choice for being better than Bad,
> that you would happily forget.
> .     Reasonable part of the ranking is ranking two or more as equally
> ranked.
>
> So I looked for what Andrew was referring to as CIVS - seems like it
> deserves more bragging than I have heard.  Voters can easily get invited and
> vote via Internet in the flexibility doable that way.  Read more at
> http://www.cs.cornell.edu/**andru/civs.html<http://www.cs.cornell.edu/andru/civs.html>
>
> Seems like CIVS would be good to use as is in many places where voting via
> Internet makes sense - and shows using Condorcet - something adaptable to
> the way we normally do elections.
>
> Dave Ketchum
>
>
> On Jul 6, 2011, at 1:48 PM, Andrew Myers wrote:
>
>> On 7/22/64 2:59 PM, Russ Paielli wrote:
>>
>>> ...I eventually realized I was kidding myself to think that those schemes
>>> will ever see the light of day in major public elections. What is the limit
>>> of complexity that the general public will accept on a large scale? I don't
>>> know, but I have my doubts that anything beyond simple Approval will ever
>>> pass muster -- and even that will be a hard sell.
>>>
>> My experience with CIVS suggests that ranking choices is perfectly
>> comprehensible to ordinary people. There have been more than 3,000 elections
>> run using CIVS, and more than 60,000 votes cast. These are not technically
>> savvy voters for the most part. To pick a few groups rather arbitrarily,
>> CIVS is being used daily by plant fanciers, sports teams, book clubs, music
>> lovers, prom organizers, beer drinkers, fraternities, church groups, PBeM
>> gamers, and families naming pets and (!) children.
>>
>> If anything, to me ranking choices seems easier than Approval, because the
>> voter doesn't have to think about where to draw the approve/disapprove
>> cutoff, which I fear also encourages voters to think strategically.
>>
>> -- Andrew
>>
>
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
>



-- 
http://RussP.us
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20110707/2028e1f0/attachment-0004.htm>