[EM] Weak Condorcet winners [was: FairVote are not the friendliest]

[Jameson Quinn]

2011/9/22 Peter Zbornik <pzbornik at gmail.com>

> Hi Jameson,
>
> Well i think the argument that two-rounds systems are silly and
> complex, can be countered ...


I'm going to cut in right there. The problem is, you don't always get a
chance to counter your opponent's arguments. If anti-reformers can run an ad
which is highly effective unless you counter it, it becomes a battle of
money, which reformers will probably lose.

Remember, doubt is their strongest weapon. Read "Merchants of Doubt" or look
up FUD on wikipedia<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt>.
I would rather have a system with specific weaknesses, where in order to
attack it anti-reformers have to help me to explain it, than a system where
the obvious attack is just to throw up muddy FUD.

That goes especially for SODA, which is in a real sense pareto dominant over
plurality. Yes, some will be skeptical about delegation, but the point is,
it's optional. SODA is basically the best of both worlds between Approval
and Asset (and it resolves the chicken dilemma as a bonus). Again, even to
make the delegation attack, opponents would be helping to reduce FUD,
because they'd be helping to explain how SODA works.

That said, I respect your arguments about the advantages of a runoff system,
and I'd definitely support a runoff system if it became a real prospect.
Problem is, SODA does not go well with a runoff, because it causes clear and
direct turkey-raising incentives for the people who are most susceptible to
such incentives, the candidates themselves.

Jameson


> with the fact that it is used all throughout
> Europe and elsewhere. I woud say runoff elections are the standard way
> of conducting single member  elections. Even though I have no data for
> this claim, the "silly and complex" argument against multiple rounds
> is easily countered.
>
> As for the argument "why two rounds-arent they sure about their own
> method?". This argument can be countered by arguing, that we leave it
> to the voter to chose which method and candidate she prefers rather
> than some, almost exclusively male, politicians.
>
> And as for the issue of focusing on the disadvantages of plurality.
> Anti-reform lobby will focus on the disadvantages of the "other
> election system", and the voter wont be able to tell which side is
> right, so he will rather go with the tried and tested FPTP or whatever
> system they currently use.
>
> But if the issue is framed as: hey guys, we know our method isnt
> perfect, the winner can sometimes be a "nobody", and neither is yours,
> the winner can sometimes be a person which very few voters actually
> support. But hey, if we can chose which winner of the two methods
> actually will be the guy who gets the seat, then it is much less
> likely that we will elect a the wrong guy in the end and we also have
> a second chance to focus on the pros and cons of only two candidares
> and not tens of them.
>
> Well something along those lines is what I imagine could be helpful in
> selling the two-round reform path.
>
> Best regards
> Peter Zbornik
>
>
>
> On 9/22/11, Jameson Quinn <jameson.quinn at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 2011/9/22 Peter Zbornik <pzbornik at gmail.com>
> >
> >> Hi Jameson,
> >>
> >> I think the best reform proposal would be FPTP and "the other method"
> >> in a two round system.
> >>
> >> This is certainly not complex and run-off elections are held
> >> everywhere in Europe, except for some larger islands of the coast of
> >> France :o).
> >>
> >> The disadvantage of introducing a new method is, that people don't
> >> understand it and are afraid that it might lead to worse results.
> >>
> >> The idea with the two-round reform path, is that people don't have to
> >> understand the "other method". If it generates a bad candidate, they
> >> will just vote for the FPTP winner. That is, there is an insurance for
> >> the electorate against worse results after election reform. And the
> >> last thin election reformers would like to see is an other election
> >> reform rolled back just like in Burlington.
> >>
> >> A two round system is very easy to explain along the following lines:
> >> Ok you have on one hand the winner of our old and tried FPTP and then
> >> the winner which is generated by a very modern method, which you don't
> >> understand how it work. Now the new thing is, you can chose which of
> >> the two winners you like. The one who gets the most votes in the
> >> second round wins, just like in FPTP.
> >>
> >> Now that was not so hard to explain, and the voter is assured that the
> >> result will not be "disastrous" because of the workings of a method he
> >> doesn't really understand.
> >>
> >
> >
> > This is basically a matter of framing. If pro-reform forces can get the
> > average voter to think of the choice as "A runoff between a system I know
> > and something new that might be better", I agree, reform wins. But
> > anti-reform forces will be busy trying to get them to think "Some
> > complicated and silly system where I'll have to vote twice instead of
> once,
> > which nobody really understands". People can be convinced by nonsensical
> > arguments like, "if this new system really had such great advantages, why
> > are even the reformers including this escape hatch?" (This argument makes
> no
> > more sense than saying that a car without seatbelts is less likely to
> crash;
> > but it can still have an impact.)
> >
> > Basically, we're some dudes (almost exclusively male) on the internet.
> > Anti-reform forces (lobbyists versed in exploiting the current system)
> are a
> > formidable enemy. I am not confident that we can win such a framing
> battle.
> > I think the chances of single-system reforms are better than hybrid
> runoffs,
> > because we can focus the debate on how the system solves plurality's
> > problems, which is where our strongest arguments lie.
> >
> > However, if a runoff-based proposal were actually being seriously
> considered
> > in some jurisdiction, I would of course support it enthusiastically.
> >
> > Jameson
> >
> >
> >>
> >> As for more imaginative proposals, see my recent post.
> >>
> >> Best regards
> >> Peter Zborník
> >>
> >> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 7:48 PM, Jameson Quinn <jameson.quinn at gmail.com
> >
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 2011/9/22 Peter Zbornik <pzbornik at gmail.com>
> >> >>
> >> >> Dear all,
> >> >>
> >> >> I agree with James, and that was why I proposed that election reform
> >> >> took the path through added election rounds.
> >> >>
> >> >> Reform of FPTP would thus add a second election round where the
> >> >> Condorcet winner would meet the FPTP winner. Who in the UK would
> >> >> object to that?
> >> >> <details snipped>
> >> >
> >> > I agree that such a system would have good results, often would not
> even
> >> > need two rounds (if all systems' winners were the same), and would
> >> > successfully address the weak Condorcet winner objection.
> Unfortunately,
> >> I
> >> > also think that it passes the complexity threshold for most people.
> It's
> >> > hard enough to explain one new system; you're suggesting making it so
> >> we'd
> >> > have to explain three? Remember, faux-just-folks "too complicated for
> >> > me"
> >> > arguments were a big part of the successful anti-AV campaign in the
> UK.
> >> > Jameson
> >>
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20110922/dc916583/attachment-0004.htm>