[EM] a response to Kristofer Munsterhjelm re: Fuzzy Options.

[David L Wetzell]

On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Jameson Quinn <jameson.quinn at gmail.com>wrote:

> JQ:You keep saying "I'm middlebrow, I think IRV would work OK, because the
> parties would shift to wherever they had to be." You could use exactly the
> same argument to support plurality.


dlw:As a matter of fact, I believe that the US was capable of doing a lot
of good things in its past, despite the fact that it primarily used
plurality because of that exact fact.  This is why I get most passionate
about the use of a mix of multi-winner and single-winner elections than the
specific sorts of options given voters.


> Yet we know that under plurality, the two-party domination is such that
> the parties get stuck and/or bought, and significant ideological segments
> are unrepresented.


dlw: It's more so like that when only plurality is used.  All parties in
power tend to get bought some and it's hard not to have some ideological
segments unrepresented.

>
> JQ:And if it doesn't work the way you expect? A lot of effort, down the
> drain; and the well is poisoned for the next reform.
>

dlw: It's going to work.  Burlington was a temporary setback, facilitated
by a lot of anti-electoral reform money and args from the detractors of IRV
that got used improperly to reinstate FPTP.

>
> JQ:Personally, I have and woud again vote for IRV, if that's the only
> choice. But if your goal is to convince all of us - or even one of us - to
> start pitching IRV to our friends as the way forward... well, it just won't
> happen.
>

dlw: I'm glad to hear it.  In my country, because of how the system is set
up currently and people's ignorance on the matter, there isn't scope for
there to be a lot of choices for electoral reform.

>
> JQ:Where we can mostly agree is on something like the statement, which
> excoriates plurality, and endorses 4 good systems, but also leaves the door
> open to IRV. And getting even that much consensus, honestly, is a struggle.
>

dlw: I guess that's why electoral reform cannot proceed by consensus which
is why I support FairVote, even though I believe that they are rhetorically
over-committed to the importance of Rank-Choice-Voting (or Later No Harm).

dlw

>
>
> JQ
>
> 2011/11/3 David L Wetzell <wetzelld at gmail.com>
>
>>
>>>>>
>>>> dlw: Well, 1. IRV3 doesn't let folks rank all of the options and so it
>>>> hopefully has more quality control on which options are ranked.
>>>> 2. by not always giving us the "center", it does permit learning about
>>>> the different viewpoints.  Remember, since I'm middle-brow, I don't put as
>>>> much significance on optimizing within the distribution of political
>>>> opinion space.
>>>>
>>>
>>> JQ:Balinski and Laraki studied a number of rules, and found that IRV and
>>> Plurality elected an extremist almost 100% of the time; Condorcet and Range
>>> elected a centrist almost 100%; and only Majority Judgment elected both
>>> centrists and extremists with about equal balance. So "learning about the
>>> different viewpoints does not favor IRV, but rather MJ.
>>>
>> dlw: But since I'm middle-brow, then I'm rather agnostic about
>> "centrism".  The political center is at best a useful fiction or something
>> tautologically always present and always shifting.  It isn't something that
>> you can construct a political party around and keep from going stale.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 3. It introduces some uncertainty in the circulation of the elites,
>>>> which can give alternative viewpoints a chance to get a better hearing.
>>>>  When a new third party gains ground, it'll get a serious hearing and
>>>> hopefully the de facto center will be moved.
>>>>
>>>
>>> JQ:Again, this actually argues for MJ more than IRV.
>>>
>> dlw: What the potential for spoilers doesn't create uncertainty or give
>> third parties some sway with the major parties?  The main losers are the
>> centrists, but with two dynamic shifting major parties, as I envision in my
>> ideal-type democracy, why would we really need a centrist party?
>> dlw
>>
>>>
>>> JQ
>>>
>>>>
>>>> dlw
>>>>
>>>> ----
>>>> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list
>>>> info
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20111103/63318c8b/attachment-0004.htm>