[EM] Au revoir,

Wed Feb 22 18:25:05 PST 2012

I'm going to unsuscribe for a spell at least tomorrow night.
It's been fun, for the most part.

I think my attempt at an intervention in the electoral debate here probably
reached the point of diminishing returns a bit back...
peace,
dlw

On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 4:52 PM, <
election-methods-request at lists.electorama.com> wrote:

> Send Election-Methods mailing list submissions to
>        election-methods at lists.electorama.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>
> http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com
>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>        election-methods-request at lists.electorama.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>        election-methods-owner at lists.electorama.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Election-Methods digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Does Range need an abstention/participation tally? (Jameson Quinn)
>   2. Post-Autistic Electoral Analysis? (David L Wetzell)
>   3. Oscar Voting (David L Wetzell)
>   4. Re: Post-Autistic Electoral Analysis? (Jameson Quinn)
>   5. Re: Oscar Voting (Jameson Quinn)
>   6. Re: Post-Autistic Electoral Analysis? (David L Wetzell)
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Jameson Quinn <jameson.quinn at gmail.com>
> To: EM <election-methods at lists.electorama.com>, electionsciencefoundation
> <electionscience at googlegroups.com>
> Cc:
> Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:15:01 -0600
> Subject: [EM] Does Range need an abstention/participation tally?
> I'm working on sketching out data structures so that Helios Voting<https://vote.heliosvoting.org/>,
> an online, open-source, cryptographically-verifiable voting system, can use
> advanced voting procedures such as Range, Majority Judgment, and SODA.
> (Condorcet is a significantly harder problem but probably doable, and IRV
> is essentially impossible).
>
> My question is: for the Range voting structures, is it acceptable to just
> keep one tally (total score) for each candidate, or do you also need a
> tally of number of voters who rated/didn't rate a candidate? The latter
> would be used for average-based schemes; so this question is equivalent to
> asking, are such schemes important enough to be worth making the data
> structures more complex? Since I'm the one signing up for the programming
> work here, I'd appreciate it if answers that ask me to do more work have a
> reasoning and a strength (ie, "I'd kinda prefer it" versus "I think it is
> absolutely necessary").
>
> Jameson
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David L Wetzell <wetzelld at gmail.com>
> To: EM <election-methods at lists.electorama.com>
> Cc:
> Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:35:14 -0600
> Subject: [EM] Post-Autistic Electoral Analysis?
> As you may know, at the beginning of this century, French and English
> economics graduate students challenged the dominance of uber-mathematically
> analytical approaches to Economics in what became the Post-Autistic
> Economics movement.   <http://www.paecon.net/HistoryPAE.htm>A lot of
> their critiques apply similarly to rational choice models in political
> science and might be worth pondering for electoral analytics.
>
> I myself consider my diffidence to jockeying for what's the best
> single-winner alternative to FPTP as blissfully ignoring how joe average
> voter(or habitual non-voter) is a creature of habit and won't respond to
> being given umpteen more choices in the way policy-wonkish electoral
> analysts would.This sort of behavioralist approach to voters is not unlike
> as shown by neurologists looking into the political brain<http://www.thepoliticalbrain.com/videos.php>.
>
>
> But I do believe that many more folks can learn to vote more rationally
> and that third parties and caucuses within major parties are the right
> groups for them to learn how to do that, but that's why I'm so enthusiastic
> about the strategic use of PR in "more local" elections, which ideally
> would by giving activists more exit threat would lead to the use of more
> caucuses like what is used by the Democrat-Farm-Labor party in MN.<http://dfl.org/about/caucuses-conventions>
>
> So I'm not saying don't do electoral analytics, but don't lose sight of
> the ambiguities involved in relating utopic, abstract models back to real
> life.
>
> dlw
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David L Wetzell <wetzelld at gmail.com>
> To: EM <election-methods at lists.electorama.com>
> Cc:
> Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:40:40 -0600
> Subject: [EM] Oscar Voting
> Steve Pond:
> http://www.thewrap.com/awards/column-post/oscar-voting-now-passions-got-nothing-do-it-35468?page=0,0
>
> The P of irv is on the rise, in addition to with the endorsement of Barack
> Obama as highlighted in Rob Richies editorial in the NYTimes, and we're not
> likely to change that in a way that similarly raises the P of *one *
> alternative.
> dlw
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Jameson Quinn <jameson.quinn at gmail.com>
> To: David L Wetzell <wetzelld at gmail.com>
> Cc: EM <election-methods at lists.electorama.com>
> Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:42:38 -0600
> Subject: Re: [EM] Post-Autistic Electoral Analysis?
>
>
> 2012/2/22 David L Wetzell <wetzelld at gmail.com>
>
>> As you may know, at the beginning of this century, French and English
>> economics graduate students challenged the dominance of uber-mathematically
>> analytical approaches to Economics in what became the Post-Autistic
>> Economics movement.   <http://www.paecon.net/HistoryPAE.htm>A lot of
>> their critiques apply similarly to rational choice models in political
>> science and might be worth pondering for electoral analytics.
>>
>> I myself consider my diffidence to jockeying for what's the best
>> single-winner alternative to FPTP as blissfully ignoring how joe average
>> voter(or habitual non-voter) is a creature of habit and won't respond to
>> being given umpteen more choices in the way policy-wonkish electoral
>> analysts would.This sort of behavioralist approach to voters is not unlike
>> as shown by neurologists looking into the political brain<http://www.thepoliticalbrain.com/videos.php>.
>>
>>
>
> I too consider my advocacy of SODA, and to a lesser extent MJ, as being
> strongly informed by a humanistic/cognitive view. It seems quite possible
> that one of us is wrong.
>
> Jameson
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Jameson Quinn <jameson.quinn at gmail.com>
> To: David L Wetzell <wetzelld at gmail.com>
> Cc: EM <election-methods at lists.electorama.com>
> Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:47:42 -0600
> Subject: Re: [EM] Oscar Voting
> Um, the McCain/Obama endorsements are very old news – for instance, it's
> from before either MJ or SODA even existed. (I know in the latter case
> that's not saying much, nor am I claiming that Obama would be more likely
> to endorse SODA today, I'm just saying that there are two systems today
> that I consider reasonably well-explored and better than what existed
> previously, that didn't exist over in the early 2000s when Obama endorsed
> IRV.)
>
> 2012/2/22 David L Wetzell <wetzelld at gmail.com>
>
>> Steve Pond:
>> http://www.thewrap.com/awards/column-post/oscar-voting-now-passions-got-nothing-do-it-35468?page=0,0
>>
>> The P of irv is on the rise, in addition to with the endorsement of
>> Barack Obama as highlighted in Rob Richies editorial in the NYTimes, and
>> we're not likely to change that in a way that similarly raises the P of *one
>> *alternative.
>>  dlw
>>
>> ----
>> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list
>> info
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David L Wetzell <wetzelld at gmail.com>
> To: Jameson Quinn <jameson.quinn at gmail.com>
> Cc: EM <election-methods at lists.electorama.com>
> Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:52:01 -0600
> Subject: Re: [EM] Post-Autistic Electoral Analysis?
> We could both be right, one in the short-run and the other in the
> long-run...
>
> dlw
>
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Jameson Quinn <jameson.quinn at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 2012/2/22 David L Wetzell <wetzelld at gmail.com>
>>
>>> As you may know, at the beginning of this century, French and English
>>> economics graduate students challenged the dominance of uber-mathematically
>>> analytical approaches to Economics in what became the Post-Autistic
>>> Economics movement.   <http://www.paecon.net/HistoryPAE.htm>A lot of
>>> their critiques apply similarly to rational choice models in political
>>> science and might be worth pondering for electoral analytics.
>>>
>>> I myself consider my diffidence to jockeying for what's the best
>>> single-winner alternative to FPTP as blissfully ignoring how joe average
>>> voter(or habitual non-voter) is a creature of habit and won't respond to
>>> being given umpteen more choices in the way policy-wonkish electoral
>>> analysts would.This sort of behavioralist approach to voters is not unlike
>>> as shown by neurologists looking into the political brain<http://www.thepoliticalbrain.com/videos.php>.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I too consider my advocacy of SODA, and to a lesser extent MJ, as being
>> strongly informed by a humanistic/cognitive view. It seems quite possible
>> that one of us is wrong.
>>
>> Jameson
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120222/5159231e/attachment-0003.htm>