[EM] Au revoir,

Thu Feb 23 06:59:45 PST 2012

Cheers. It's been nice to have you around. I have been hard on you where we
disagree; but in general, beyond the details of your theories, I think that
your focus on what is actually achievable is a very healthy reminder.

Jameson

2012/2/22 David L Wetzell <wetzelld at gmail.com>

> 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
>>
>>
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20120223/fb7a19eb/attachment-0004.htm>