[EM] Robert Bristow Johnson wrt Burlington et al.

[David L Wetzell]

>
>
>> dlw:       The two major-party equilibrium would be centered around the
>>        de facto center.
>>
>>
>> KM:   But positioning yourself around the de facto center is dangerous
>>    in IRV. You might get center-squeezed unless either you or your
>>    voters start using strategic lesser-evil logic - the same sort of
>>    logic that IRV was supposed to free you from by "being impervious
>>    to spoilers".
>>
>> dlw: the cost of campaigning in "less local" elections is high enuf that
>> it's hard for a major party to get center-squeezed.  And if such did
>> happen, they could reposition to prevent it.
>>
>
> RBJthe counterexample, again, is Burlington Vermont.  Dems haven't sat in
> the mayor's chair for decades.
>

dlw: Not sure this is a relevant counter example.  With IRV, the two major
parties would become the Progs and the Dems who would be centered around
the de facto center of Burlington.

>
> --
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: matt welland <matt at kiatoa.com>
> RBF: the counterexample, again, is Burlington Vermont.  Dems haven't sat in
> > the mayor's chair for decades.
>
> MW: Is this due to a split of the liberal vote by progressives or other
> liberal blocs? Or is it due to a truly Republican leaning demographic?
>

dlw: More to the point, this is not an arg against IRV since it was only
tried for one election in Burlington.

>
> MW:Also, do folks generally see approval as better than or worse than IRV?
>
> To me Approval seems to solve the spoiler problem without introducing
> any unstable weirdness and it is much simpler and cheaper to do than
> IRV.
>

dlw: I would not describe IRV as introducing unstable weirdness.  It
maintains a two-party dominated system and facilitates that those two major
parties tend to position themselves around the de facto (shifting) center.


> What do you think of the IRV3/AV3 system that treats the up to 3 ranked
> votes as approval votes to get 3 finalists with IRV used in the final
> stage?
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: robert bristow-johnson <rbj at audioimagination.com>
> To: election-methods at lists.electorama.com
> Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2011 22:31:03 -0500
> Subject: Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.
> On 11/26/11 6:58 PM, matt welland wrote:
>
>>
>>> MW:Is this due to a split of the liberal vote by progressives or other
>> liberal blocs? Or is it due to a truly Republican leaning demographic?
>>
> RBS:Burlington is, for the U.S., a very very liberal town with a
> well-educated and activist populace.  it's the origin of Ben & Jerry's and
> now these two guys are starting a movement ( http://movetoamend.org/ ) to
> get a constitutional amendment to reverse the obscene Citizens United
> ruling of the Supreme Court.
>
> the far north end of Burlington (called the "New North End", also where i
> live) is a little more suburban in appearance and here is where the GOP
> hangs in this town.
>
> the mayors have been Progs with an occasional GOP.  it is precisely the
> "center squeeze" syndrome and IRV didn't solve that problem. and without
> getting Condorcet adopted, i am not sure how it will be reversed.
>

dlw: If you had given IRV another election, it would have likely solved the
problem.   You cannot seriously think that one Burlington has driven a
stake in the heart of IRV for once and forever.



>
>> RBS:but the only voting methods folks generally see here are FPTP, FPTP
> with a delayed runoff, and IRV.  and, thanks to FairVote, nearly everyone
> are ignorant of other methods to tabulate the ranked ballot than the STV
> method in IRV.
>

dlw: And it was hard work to get people to get IRV..., just think how hard
it would be to teach them about 4 very heterogeneous election rules.



>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Jameson Quinn <jameson.quinn at gmail.com>
> To: David L Wetzell <wetzelld at gmail.com>
> Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2011 22:32:53 -0600
> Subject: Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.
> Here's I think the crux of your mistake:
>
>>  We can't say it's just a matter of opinion, cuz it's probably not such,
>>
>
> I don't want to get too far into philosophical issues here, but I think
> that in one sense we can basically take it for granted that it's not such:
> that, in the proverbial phrase, God does, in fact, know whether
> p(irv_succeeds_broadly | voting_reform_succeeds_broadly ) is close to 1,
> close to 0.5, or close to 0. (I say that as shorthand; I'm actually quite
> convinced God doesn't exist, I'm just saying I believe in objective truth.)
>

dlw: Args about God are for another list-serve...  I'd say I'd bet my life
that P(irv_succeeds_broadly_among_single-winner_elections | maintain
existing voting reform strategy(+ IRV3/AV3 tweak)) >>
P(another_election_rule_replaces_irv_and succeeds_broadly_et al. | existing
voting reform strategy is subverted on the basis of electoral analytical
args + Burlington, VT case-study)

>
>  But the fact that the truth is out there, does not imply that it is
> either desirable or possible for people to stop arguing about it before we
> have much clearer evidence of what it is.
>

dlw:  The existence of the  truth + exigencies of the US system can make it
pragmatically wise to subdue some differences for a spell.

>
>
>> and so what makes sense to me is to rally around IRV3/AV3
>>
>
> Exactly. What makes sense to YOU. You have chosen to believe in a certain
> scenario about the future. But repeating and repeating your plausible, but
> non-overwhelming, reasons for making that choice, simply is not going to
> lead to everyone lining up behind you.
>

dlw: We can't do over-whelming with so little real world experimentation in
the use of single-winner election rules for political elections.  We gotta
raise our alpha level.  Apart from my args is the reality that there is
institutional support for pushing the use of IRV+PR and its made
significant inroads among progressive activists.  This is a fact.  It is
what under girds my choice to believe in a certain scenario about the
future.

>
> JQ: We already have a nice dinner riding on each of us believing "I'm
> right and you're reasonable enough to see that eventually". But I think I
> could make you some further bets where your overconfident belief would make
> you a sucker.
> 1. I'd bet you at 5:1 odds that you won't convince this list to do what
> you say. You can propose your own terms, but I'm thinking of something like
> the following: 2 years from today, take "people on this list" to mean
> "email addresses, weighted by max(0, ln(number of posts to this list))",
> that there will be more people on this list who support other methods over
> IRV than vice versa, by objective metrics. So I'd put up $500 against your
> $100.
>

dlw: I'd be willing to bet that if we ran a f-p-t-p election that actually
had significant consequences in terms of list-member money going to support
electoral reform activism then a plurality of list-members, weighted by
their participation, would vote strategically in favor of IRV3/AV3 over any
of the 4 other contenders.  This will be because the 4 others will likely
remain at a serious marketing disadvantage with US voters.  Now, this might
be because of strategic voting, but such would be wise when using FPTP.  I
don't know what would happen if we used approval voting, because I know the
antipathy twds IRV is strong among many here and there's not likely to be
much new stuff going on empirically to break that view point.

I don't know what would be the case if we didn't make it have consequences,
because that is what happens on list-serves, as opposed to among electoral
activists laying their face/careers on the line over a specific electoral
reform.  Those who face the real world consequences tend to go with IRV or
IRV3.  This is because it's a decent rule and a path of less resistance,
especially relative to pushing a new rule(s) that most people don't
understand and that would require much more costly spade work in
voter-education.

JQ: 2. I'd bet you at even odds that, ten years from today, IF more than 20
> different US jurisdictions have separately implemented some single winner
> reform, that fewer than 10 of those are IRV. (I agree with you that if
> voting reform continues with limited, scattered success as today, that it
> will probably be mostly IRV. But I think that the case where it
> successfully takes off is a different kettle of fish.) I'd put up to $200
> on this bet.
>

dlw: I'd be all over that if all I cared about was money, but I think it's
a sincere and very much mistaken sentiment.

>
> JQ: I'm serious about both of these offers. If you're serious about what
> you affirm on this list, you should take me up on them, because you would
> have to believe that they're safe bets for you. Of course, since I'm
> talking about real money, though hopefully something either of us could
> afford, I wouldn't make these bets without further clarifying the rules and
> finding some way we can make our 2/10 year commitments reasonably
> trustworthy to each other.
>

dlw: I believe you're serious.   Like I said, I'm not that motivated by
money....(especially for a guy with a PhD in Econ.)  It's a byproduct of me
being an aspie.  So I'd feel bad about taking you up on the 2nd one and the
first bet is inadequately framed in my view....

>
> Jameson
>
> _______________________________________________
> Election-Methods mailing list
> Election-Methods at lists.electorama.com
> http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20111127/db4f24b7/attachment-0003.htm>