[EM] Jameson reply #2, 4/14/12

Michael Ossipoff email9648742 at gmail.com
Sat Apr 14 11:59:55 PDT 2012


You wrote the 3 paragraphs quoted immediately below. But noice that, immediately
below your 3 paragraphs, in your own posting, and in my copy below,
are the words
wich which I had just finished answering an objection about the same
as yours, and
clarifying what i was talking about:

Your objection:

I disagree. Yes, you can make up plausible stories where Condorcet, MJ, or
Range could give pathological results in a case where Plurality could have
gotten it right. Such a result is orders of magnitude less probable than
the reverse, but it's possible.

Not so for SODA. Yes, SODA is more complicated, and so some people will not
trust it. But I still contend that it is strictly better in all regards
(including both results and voter simplicity) than approval, which is in
turn strictly better than plurality.

I'm not claiming here that SODA is better, on the whole, than the other
advanced systems I named. Since there are advantages on either side, that's
a judgment call. But between SODA and approval, all the advantages except
simplicity of definition lie with SODA.


Wrong. SODA violates FBC. Admittedly it does so in a way that isn't as
problematic as most
other FBC failures. You say that if the voters are alert and savvy
enough, they'll know when
they do and don't have to compromise. That might not be enough to make
SODA's FBC failure

As for the rest of what you said above:

Here is what I had just finished saying, and what was quoted
immediately below your words in your
own posting:

* *>* No doubt, Condorcet, Kemmeny, MJ, etc., are improvements on
Plurality. You know that.*>* I know that. Nearly no one knows
that.*>**>* An elaborate contraption like Condorcet or Kemmeny will be
viewed as likely to have*>* un-forseen consequences--as, in fact, rank
methods do tend to have. People won't know*>* if it's really an
improvement on Plurality, or whether, instead, it will bring some*>*
dreadful problem that will create disaster.*>**>* Media, opponents and
self-serving politicians will, of course pick that up and run with
it.*>**>* They're sure to say, "That will require a lot more study".
Translation: It will never*>* be enacted.

I hope that answers your objection. I'm not denying that various
complicated methods improve
on Plurality.

You're mistaken if you think that SODA will be an easy sell. You can
say, "But no one has to delegate.
It's only an option."  The answer will be, "Optional or otherwise, I
don't want politicians doing the voting
to elect politicians." Yes, they have to abide by their own rankings,
but writing their rankings amounts to
candidate-choosing power in the hands of politicians (even if it's
only really in their hands when a voter
puts it there). Also, you said that the politicians could negotiate
among themselves. How reassuring to you think that is?
Would they negotiate in smoke-filled rooms?

Mike Ossipoff

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20120414/e2395a19/attachment-0002.htm>

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list