[EM] Robert Bristow Johnson wrt Burlington et al.

[David L Wetzell]

On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 4:47 AM, Jameson Quinn <jameson.quinn at gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> 2011/11/27 David L Wetzell <wetzelld at gmail.com>
>
>> meh,
>> I don't want to take bet number 1.
>>
>
> Understood. Please notice what you're saying here: you think you are
> unlikely in practice (less than 17%, if you were a rational
> money-maximizer) to convince people on this list to line up behind IRV. I
> obviously agree with this assessment, or I would not have offered the bet.
>

Maybe, I'm risk averse?  I think a plurality of you would at least
strategically support IRV, but you framed it as a majority.

>
> So, what does that mean for the utility of signing the statement? I know
> how I'd answer that question, but I want to know how you do.
>

dlw: I don't think the statement is going to make much of a diff either
way.  Electoral reform in the USA is more of a marketing problem than an
analytical problem.  IOW, the ps dominate the xs and it's going to be hard
to get you all to agree on the best x so as to elevate its p.

>
>
>> So I'll take bet number 2,
>>
>
> OK, we'll talk off-list about settling the details of bet 2 ("10 years
> from now, IF there have been over 20 independent cases of voting reform in
> the USA, then 10 of them will/will not be IRV.")
>

sure.
dlw

>
> Jameson
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20111128/9a1984c6/attachment-0004.htm>