[EM] Has this idea been considered?

[Kristofer Munsterhjelm]

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* some of the participants on this list are advanced 
mathematicians. We (list participants, since I'm not an advanced 
mathematician, at least not formally :-) might discuss whether or not 
Ranked Pairs is better than Schulze, but were it to come to a referendum 
or a common suggestion, I would support either without a thought.

(What happened to that idea of finding a compromise method that 
everybody on EM could support? Did the idea get sidetracked by SODA?)

I would support Schulze and Ranked Pairs, and the uncovered versions 
thereof. I would have to think a bit longer, but I would probably also 
support Minmax (a bit concerned about clones though) and even 
Nanson/Baldwin (since it's not so different from IRV, and has actually 
been used) and BTR-IRV (for those areas where IRV has buried its claws, 
if the choice is between BTR-IRV and IRV or Plurality).

I would have to think further yet, but I would probably also support 
Approval (depends on what the alternatives were), and Range 
(reluctantly), or top-two (because it works in France). I wouldn't 
support IRV, as I don't think it'll make a significant difference 
(consider Australia, for instance).

> 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?

Andrew has given a strategy here: let the people become used to ranked 
balloting (primarily) and to Condorcet resolution (secondarily).

Schulze is also getting some use in different organizations, and it may 
be possible to spread it further to other organizations in that way. If 
the members there get used to counting ballots in the Schulze manner, 
they may start wondering why that isn't done in their local election. It 
may be a slow strategy, but you can't wave a magic wand and alter the 
Presidential election system out of the blue, I think.

> 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!

By then, hopefully there will be local elections being counted by that 
system, and then one can use that as precedent. Something to the effect 
of: "the people in XYZ vote by method W and like the results. It's more 
complex than Plurality, but XYZ has many independents and smaller 
parties, which is a rarity elsewhere, and the people like it".

For that matter, if what I know about US lawmakers is correct, the 
Senators (and Representatives) usually don't know or read the more 
involved bills themselves anyway. They don't have the time or knowledge.

> 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.

Yup, that's a problem. It's a general problem for any kind of change: if 
you have an unfair system and wish to correct it, then if those who 
currently benefit from the unfair distribution of power are also the 
gatekeepers, then they will, and can, oppose your change. It's their 
power on the line.

There are no quick fixes to this. The only way to handle it would be 
through the democratic process, which means one should organize and try 
to convince the people themselves to support the change.

It might be useful to look at the history of the Proportional 
Representation League in this respect. Their push for PR did manage to 
get it passed in certain areas (New York, Cincinnati), but then the 
machines caught on and, well, those areas no longer use PR. It's going 
to be tough, no doubt about that, and I hope someone around here is good 
enough at organizing, or that someone who *is* would appear if the 
methods get initial momentum (in local elections, organizations, etc).

However, there is a special case: the two parties may themselves be 
interested in these sorts of methods for their primaries. I don't know 
US politics in depth, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd think the 
Republican party in particular could be interested, since they're having 
to deal with the internal fractioning around Tea Party lines. For that 
party, it might be more a matter of reality than of ideology: find a 
better primary method or face the dangers of the split.

> 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.

I think they've been lucky - at the right place at the right time - but 
that's a subject for another post.