[EM] STV+AV

[Jameson Quinn]

Bayesians don't accept or reject their priors; they adjust them in response
to any new evidence.

Humans, on the other hand, rationalize. I do it to. But in this case, you
have to admit that you're quacking an awful lot like that kind of duck.

Jameson

2012/2/6 David L Wetzell <wetzelld at gmail.com>

> Rationality in the face of the complexity of reality entails having priors
> and valuing empiricism(based on more than a case-study) over theory.
>  There's not evidence to make me reject my prior that in the short-run in
> the US that the variance in the quality of alternatives to FPTP(apart from
> "top 2 primary") is not great enuf to justify trying to change horses going
> different directions.  And, It greatly pales in the face of the evidence
> that the use of Am forms of PR is crucial to stop the cut-throat
> competitive struggle between our top two parties to dominate US politics.
>
> dlw
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Jameson Quinn <jameson.quinn at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 2012/2/6 David L Wetzell <wetzelld at gmail.com>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Agreed, but no chance this will happen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What if electoral analysts put more of their power into showing others
>>>>> why such a change would be for the greater good, rather than dickering over
>>>>> which single-winner election rule is the best???
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps you should apply this audacious hope argument to the p_x's.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not-so much if I'm right about the variance of the Xs for single-winner
>>> political elections...
>>>
>>> Which would better have helped me guess you would say this: modeling you
>> as a rational truth-seeker, or modeling you as someone rationalizing
>> pre-decided conclusions?
>>
>> Jameson
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20120206/3f90d655/attachment-0004.htm>