[EM] Has this idea been considered?

[Dave Ketchum]

On Jul 7, 2011, at 3:54 PM, Russ Paielli wrote:

> 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?

Because we, hopefully, honor the different rules that make sense when  
we are voting for the public, rather than what you properly complain  
about.

> 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?

Need to start, before listening to your words, with how to let the  
voters express their desires - something some of them realize need of  
already.
>
>
> 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!

Congress is important for later - need to start with more lolcal  
targets.
>
> 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.

Constitution?  Anyway, need to have a plan to have some idea about who  
might agree/oppose.
>
>
> 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.

Above you said selling would be undoable; here you say what should  
never get bought has demonstrated possibility of selling such?

Dave Ketchum
>
> 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
>
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20110707/cd408dbc/attachment-0004.htm>