[EM] Sparring over AV vs IRV at Least of All Evils...
jameson.quinn at gmail.com
Fri Feb 3 07:30:42 PST 2012
2012/2/3 David L Wetzell <wetzelld at gmail.com>
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Jameson Quinn <jameson.quinn at gmail.com>wrote:
>> 2012/2/3 David L Wetzell <wetzelld at gmail.com>
>>> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:00 AM, Jameson Quinn <jameson.quinn at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>> I consider the whole "encourages big parties to follow the moving
>>>> center" thing to be so ridiculous as not to bear argument, given that, as
>>>> DSH points out, the center is one of the worst places to be in IRV.
>>> I said "follow" and I presume that one cannot pinpoint the center... In
>>> my heuristic, we get to see the numbers, but the parties don't. They can
>>> choose direction and to move a little or a relatively lot, but they cannot
>>> stake any point, cuz it will change.
>> Enough words.
>> If you propose a model that is well-specified enough to be tested in
>> silicio, we'll talk.
> *JMKeynes* stated that creative thinking begins as a "grey, *fuzzy*,
> woolly *monster*" in one's head..... my idea is still under development
> and it very well may remain a heuristic due to the phenomena of theglobal underdetermination of science.<https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=underdetermination+global+science+duhem#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=global+underdetermination+science+quine&pbx=1&oq=global+underdetermination+science+quine&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=16143l16942l1l17830l5l5l0l0l0l0l146l501l4.1l5l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.,cf.osb&fp=8bfec2db87b5ba25&biw=1490&bih=905>
> JQ: Certainly, nothing you've said so far is unreasonable for that; a
>> one-dimensional spectrum with an unknown shift between elections, voters
>> with some bias towards the top two parties from the last election, and
>> parties with some cost for mobility, especially with an inability to switch
>> positions, trying to maximize their win percentage with the least movement.
>> I believe that in such a model, IRV would be closer to Plurality (ie, bad)
>> than it would be to any other good system (approval with reasonable voter
>> strategy, Condorcet, MJ, Range, or SODA). I hope we could make some kind of
>> a bet, and that my expected winnings plus my curiosity would be enough to
>> make it worth my while to actually do the test.
> You'd need to model a random walk of the center that alters all of the
> positions and the difficulties of mobility of parties. It's easier for a
> new party to locate anywhere, but then it's gotta take time to gain
> voter-support. I think thereby that voter-participation (or lack thereof)
> cd also be a relevant factor and the use of a 2-d model.
It sounds to me as if you're leaving yourself an out. When you're making a
model to explain a basic behavior, you need to be able to reduce it to the
essentials. If one of those essentials is something that can't work in
silicio, OK. But the epicycles you're talking about are the kind of thing
you add to make your model fit reality better, not to get basic behaviors
We both agree that parties will not follow the center well under plurality,
and that they will under some other system(s) (such as honest Range). I'm
saying IRV will be more like plurality, you're saying it will be more like
the good systems. We should not have to build more than a simple model to
test this. Until we build that model, reasserting our positions verbally
has no value.
> I'm also guessing from my fuzzy monster that both the distance of the de
> facto center from the true center and the stability of the de facto center
> are going to be worthy of consideration, not unlike how mean-variance
> models are used to evaluate stocks.
>> Otherwise, I'm tired of debating this back and forth. I'm an empiricist,
>> not a platonist. (Middlebrow?)
> I'm not a gambler and not very peculiarly endowed at this point. (I was a
> prof of Econ in Idaho, but apparently my car started leaking
> carbon-monoxide close to the beginning of my time in ID, and that took a
> toll on me. I needed some time off and when I started looking for work
> again it was the great recession. That was when I began to study electoral
> reform seriously and it is why I'm currently a tutor (and a writer of
> political science fiction apparently).)
OK, understood. So that means we have to try even harder to make the model
simpler; simple enough so that my curiosity is enough to get me to test it
> So I hope we can try doing something like this... as a way to push the
> envelope from static models that presume parties are able to position
> themselves where they choose.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Election-Methods