[EM] Remember Toby

[Jameson Quinn]

2011/6/8 robert bristow-johnson <rbj at audioimagination.com>

>
> On Jun 8, 2011, at 10:32 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
>
>
>>
>> 2011/6/8 robert bristow-johnson <rbj at audioimagination.com>
>>
>> On Jun 8, 2011, at 9:51 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 8, 2011, at 1:32 PM, Juho Laatu wrote:
>> On 8.6.2011, at 16.15, Jameson Quinn wrote:
>>
>> 1. Before the election, candidates (including declared write-ins) submit
>> full rankings of other candidates.
>> ...
>>
>> i still think this Asset thingie is crappy.  it is *immaterial* how
>> candidates rank or value the other candidates.  the only thing that matters
>> is how the electorate values the candidates.
>>
>>
>> Just curious: would you be happy if making your ballot delegable were
>> opt-in, rather than opt-out?
>>
>
> i would be happy with a contingency vote and a 2nd contingency vote and
> maybe a 3rd contingency vote.  after that, i think that most of the other
> candidates are in league with Satan. :-)


 I didn't ask about contingencies, I asked about delegability. Let me
rephrase the question.

Take another system called "opt-in SODA". Unlike SODA, which counts a bullet
vote as delegable unless the voter also somehow marks "do not delegate",
under opt-in soda a bullet vote is non-delegable unless the voter also marks
"make this vote delegable". Obviously, mathematically, this is the same
system; the difference is essentially just a matter of ballot design. Would
this system be palatable to you?

As to which is better - SODA or opt-in SODA - that's basically a question of
which system would lead to more people mistakenly leaving the default even
though they would have intended to change it if they understood. I think
that the fact that third-party support is habitually much lower in actual
elections than in polls, shows that most people would rather a
strategically-effective vote than a bullet vote for their favorite. That,
for me, is evidence that opt-out is better than opt-in for SODA. But I'd
happily support the opt-in variety, if that one were more likely to be
implemented. Again, they're mathematically identical.


>
>> You consider delegation to be a negative. But many people would like their
>> vote to be delegable.
>>
>
> delegable over their own expressed contingency vote?
>
> and what if the delegated vote fails to elect?  then is it the delegated
> delegate (or delegate^2) who decides who i'm voting for?


Not in SODA. You seem to be arguing against a straw man.


>  (this is worse than IRV.)   i (and i would hope that most intelligent
> voters) do *not* want someone else voting for me in elections.
>

And in SODA, you and anyone else who feels that way can easily make sure it
doesn't happen. Why do you want to deny me and the people who feel like me
the right to


>
> now, in a representative government, it is true that (if my candidate is
> elected) i am delegating authority to this candidate to vote in my place in
> the legislative body that i send him/her to office for.  i may or may not
> like the votes he/she makes (and if i don't like too many, i might vote for
> his/her opponent next election).
>
> i know that, both for the U.S. president, and for many states (in fact here
> in Vermont, the new legislature elects the governor if there is no majority
> in the statewide vote, and this happened twice since i moved to Vermont) we
> are delegating our electoral vote to others, but only in unusual
> circumstances when a decision must be made.  (here in Vermont, they elected
> the Plurality winner in 2002 and 2010 and there would have been a great hew
> and cry if they did anything differently.)
>
> so, i guess i'm not too keen about delegating my vote when i want to
> participate directly in choosing the person going into office.
>
>
>  For instance, as somebody whose views are out of the US mainstream, I do
>> not expect my candidate to win.
>>
>
> i with you there.  wasn't until 2008 that i was particularly happy about
> the elected prez, and this goes back to 1976.


If you're still happy with Obama, then I'm further from the mainstream than
you are. But let's not get distracted with politics, please.


>
>
>  While of course I'd like to convince the majority to agree with my
>> (impeccably correct) views, I do not even wish I could impose them
>> undemocratically (except insofar as they accord with the constitution and/or
>> inalienable rights). I would, however, like my views to have a spokesperson
>> with a measure of democratic voice and power in accord with the size of my
>> faction. If I truly liked a candidate, I would regard it as a positive
>> benefit to give them my delegable vote, even if they ended up using it
>> exactly as I would have.
>>
>
> you mean; even if they ended up *not* using it exactly as you would have,
> no?


I meant what I said. Even if I could have correctly predicted the
appropriate strategy, I still see a positive benefit in letting a
spokesperson execute that strategy, rather than doing it myself.

If they end up doing something different because of the better information
available after the election, that's even better.

If they end up doing something different because, even with that perfect
information, they cannot discern the correct strategy, then they must be
dumber than... OK, I'm not going to name names, I don't want to bring
distracting politics into it. But I believe I can be very confident in
saying this will not happen.

If they end up doing something different because they were a double-agent
all along, then I can only be glad that such a snake did not actually win
the election. Having voted for a traitor, I have no right to complain about
the result.

If they do something different because of horse-trading, then it depends
whether I consider that horse-trading to have been done in my interest (in
which case it's a case of better information, see 3 paragraphs above), or in
their own corrupt interest (in which case they're a traitor, see directly
above).

Yes, it is theoretically possible for my trust to be betrayed. That does not
mean I should be forbidden from giving it. I've trusted poorly in the past,
but I've also trusted well, and I still believe that my trust is worthwhile
and correct.


> i think we should be forced to make up our own minds about the candidates,
> and not to pass that off onto someone else or some panel or body of
> delegates.


Do you also believe we should be forbidden from reading endorsements? Or
maybe only endorsements from people we don't like, so that they don't
corrupt our judgement?

You can't force someone to make up their own mind.

And as I said above, not wanting to make up your mind is anyway only one
reason to want to delegate. People like me, who are highly-informed and
opinionated, may want to delegate in order to give voice to a spokesperson.
And others may want to delegate in order to have their strategy decided with
better information. All of those are valid reasons and I find it hard to
believe you'd really want to impose your views on all voters.


>  i want my state legislator (whom i like) to vote for me in the statehouse
> (regarding laws or bills or appointed officials), but not in the voting
> booth.
>

SODA would not force you to.


>
> i'm still unmoved from Ranked-Choice and Condorcet.


Is this plurality, then, where you can only support your favorite [voting
system] option? I'm not trying to convince you to love SODA, only to like it
better than what you have today.

JQ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20110609/fb7ccaab/attachment.htm>