[EM] re Unger wrt tabulation

Thu Feb 2 12:40:02 PST 2012

>
>
> From: robert bristow-johnson <rbj at audioimagination.com>
> To: election-methods at lists.electorama.com
> Cc:
> Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 14:36:11 -0500
> Subject: Re: [EM] Unger, wrt tabulation.
> On 2/2/12 2:16 PM, David L Wetzell wrote:
>
>> I do change my mind.  The fact I haven't wrt IRV is because I got a good
>> case and it is a huge non sequitur to presume that "the" solution to the
>> US's political problems is for it to become an EU-style multi-party
>> system....
>>
>
> careful, David.  a hard-won reform that performs poorly the *second* time
> it's used, sets *back* the movement for voting reform.  it's important that
> we get this right, not just change it from the status quo.
>

But it didn't perform poorly.

As far as we know, the sort of graft discovered about the Progressive
party's mayor was par for the course, but it got revealed as part of a
campaign to hurt the Prog party.  When the IRV rule didn't elect the CW in
an unusually 3-way competitive election, it became vulnerable to a serious
campaign against it.

It's not like other election rule alternatives haven't been adopted and
then rescinded due to similar smear campaigns...

>
>  Didn't you read RBJ's rebuke to your over-the-top rhetoric wrt IRV???
>>
>
> careful, David.  even though Kathy Dopp has not recognized it, and many
> here in Burlington (on both sides of the IRV debate) don't quite understand
> my nuance (just like the two-party system of Dumb and Dumber, for most
> people here, yer either fer or agin' IRV), i am, and have been since March
> 2009, a pointed critic of IRV because it was so clear that IRV *failed* to
> do what it was we wanted it to do in 2009.
>

I accept that you are a pointed critic of IRV.  I think you misunderstood
what IRV does.  It doesn't always get the CW.  It makes the two top parties
have to follow the true center and it penalizes them if they do not adapt.
  This is what happened in 2009.  The GOP refused to move towards the
center and as a result, the Progs got the 2nd ranking of the majority of
Democratic party supporters.

>
> but i voted to keep IRV in 2010 (hoping that we could keep the ranked
> ballot and maybe reform it from IRV to Condorcet) and when that failed, i
> voted to require a (delayed) runoff for the mayoral election when no
> candidate achieved 50% and that also failed.  the threshold is exceeding
> 40%.  even though the Progs have not fielded a candidate this year (the
> Progs are in trouble here in Burlington), there *is* a third candidate who
> will likely draw more votes from the Dem than from the GOP candidate.  we
> could very well get a Mayor 41% and that is precisely the problem.  in my
> opinion, the very people who accused the Progs of trying to set up a voting
> system that specifically (and unfairly) favors their party have themselves
> reverted us back to a system that specifically and unfairly favors
> themselves.  the die is cast.
>

The reality of electoral politiks is that people support rules
strategically more often than not.  This can mean that it's better to go
for a rule that's "flawed" in that it tends to continue "Dumb and Dumber",
but that's what is more acceptable to those in power.

>
>  Y'all are trying to justify the large amount of time spent playing with
>> complicated single-winner election rules when the truth is that such is not
>> a pressing question for US_American electoral reform.
>>
>
> i might agree with that.  but i wouldn't include Condorcet among the list.
>

It's not realistic to expect most voters to rank so many candidates and if
they don't, the potential for non-existence of CWs increases and that then
would again make the rule vulnerable to obfuscatory campaigns that exploit
differences among electoral advocates like us....

dlw

>
> --
>
> r b-j                  rbj at audioimagination.com
>
> "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: robert bristow-johnson <rbj at audioimagination.com>
> To: election-methods at lists.electorama.com
> Cc:
> Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 14:49:55 -0500
> Subject: Re: [EM] [CES #4429] Looking at Condorcet
> On 2/2/12 2:07 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
>
>> On 02/02/2012 05:28 AM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
>>
>>  I honestly think that honest rating is easier than honest ranking.
>>> (How's that for honesty per square word?) MJ is the only system which
>>> allows honest rating to be full-strength in practice; and SODA is the
>>> only good system which allows anything easier. (And no, approval is not
>>> easier than MJ, because approval forces some amount of strategizing.)
>>>
>>
>> As a contrast, to me, ranking is easier than rating. When I'm set to
>> rate, I tend to think about whether I rated the candidate just right or not
>> - did I rate him too high, too low?
>>
>
> precisely.  that's something that an Olympic judge needs to worry about,
> but not a voter.
>
> and then the other issue is, when we are in the voting booth, we are not
> just judges.  we are *partisans*.  suppose it's a Score ballot and two
> candidates. even if i think that both Candidates A and B are "okay", but i
> decide i like A better, would you expect me to rate A a "10" and B a "9"?
>  NO!  i will not attenuate my vote: A gets 10 and B gets 0.  once i decide
> i like A better, i want to exercise my entire franchise to help A defeat B,
> even if i wouldn't be so disappointed if B was elected.
>
> and then, with 3 or more candidates, the tactical problem is: how much do
> you score your 2nd-choice given two competing goals?  you don't want to
> help your 2nd choice beat your 1st choice, but you also *do* want to help
> your 2nd choice beat your last choice.
>
> "oh me oh my, oh me oh my!  what to do, what to do?!!"
>
> Approval has the same problem.
>
>  - but if I rank, I don't have to care about that. All I have to do is get
>> a general idea of the order of preference, and then ask "do I like X better
>> than Y or vice versa".
>>
>
> and that's  all you have to worry about in a simple-majority, 2-candidate,
> one-person-one-vote election.  except for that there are more candidates,
> it should be no different for multiple candidates.
>
>>
>> Maybe I'm uncommon,
>>
>
> no.
>
>  but I thought I would say it. I've heard the claim that rating is easier
>> than ranking before, and maybe it still is -- to most people.
>>
>
> i don't believe it.
>
>
> --
>
> r b-j                  rbj at audioimagination.com
>
> "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120202/eb47275c/attachment-0003.htm>