[EM] STV+AV

[David L Wetzell]

They don't always change their priors *much*.  It depends on the evidence...

And I do rationalize.  I just don't want to rationalize the fact that the
difficulties this list-serve has in agreeing on the best single-winner
election rule is consistent with the possibility that there wouldn't be
that much in differences if oth replaced irv or there wouldn't be that much
a diff relative to if irv+ replaced irv, since competitive 3-way
single-winner elections are rare in the US and not stable and
Burlington-like anomalies/pathologies aren't so bad in a multi-stage game
and angels don't necessarily lose their wings whenever someone is pressured
to vote strategically.

And I will concede that among electoral reform analysts there is a strong
preference for multi-party systems.  However, this may reflect  ideological
stuff that led them to invest themselves in becoming electoral reform
analysts in the first place.  If we had a different kind of 2-party system
then they'd "rationalize" or realize that the diffs aren't so great.

dlw

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Jameson Quinn <jameson.quinn at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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/bf19ea33/attachment-0004.htm>