[EM] Scoring (was Re: OpenSTV 2.1.0 released)

[Juho Laatu]

On 21.9.2012, at 4.05, Michael Ossipoff wrote:

> When you say "can't be elected", you need to examine what you mean by
> that. Do you mean "can't be elected under combination of a selective
> media blackout, and Plurality voting"? Or do you mean "can't be
> elected because the public prefer the policies of the Republocrats"?

Just "in practice". Some more weight on Duverger's law, some less on media (would happen also without media).

>> It is hard to find methods that have no weaknesses. Luckily we can often use methods whose weaknesses are weak enough.
> 
> We can do better. We can avoid certain strategy needs. For instance
> there are now a wide variety of FBC-complying methods. They have
> absolutely no favorite-burial incentive.

I think it makes often sense to trade one full compatibility to numerous "well enough" compatibilities. As in security, the system is as strong as its weakest link. One should thus focus on making the weakest points stronger, not on making strong points even stronger.

>> All those three methods may meet that target in some elections.
> 
> "...may..."?

Depends on targets and environment. There are varoius needs and various best methods.

> I suggest to you that maybe actual conversations with actual
> people, here, tells a different story than your tv network sources.

I've had some.

> Have you ever noticed how perfectly the public psychology works with
> the sheep-herder's efforts? It's as if the sheep and the herders were
> made for eachother. It's as if those two sets of people were _born_
> for their roles with regard to eachother. It's as if we have specially
> bred sheep, to work with the sheep-herders. We do. It's just like
> Huxley's _Brave New World_ ...except that, of course, it's anything
> but new. It's the result of long evolution, over human and pre-human
> history. That's where the actual situation differs from _Brave New
> World_. It isn't done by drugging. It's done, instead, by natural
> evolution.

In politics, as in elsewhere, there are often multiple interest groups that try to optimize the game from their point of view. Achieved symbiotic balance states may well seem like "made for each other".

Humans are good at learning new methods. They have learned e.g many tricks to make people buy something that they want them to buy. Politics is not very far from that.

>> The opinion of other people does influence on what people do. Some methods might even reinforce this behaviour. I believe, in most methods the method specific "bad group behaviour reinforcing" factor is not very strong.
> 
> [endquote]
> 
> Again, you're speculating about a country (U.S.) about which your only
> information comes from such as CNN and Fox tv.

I try to avoid commenting on what the U.S. system is like or what the U.S. people shoud do. I may comment your comments on the U.S. system, but when I can, I prefer taking about election methods at a general level, not about the specifics of individual countries. In the sentence above I commented methods in general, not anything U.S. specific. (I also don't watch CNN nor Fox.)

> You continue:
> 
> We also need good electorate, which could mean continuous education
> and encouragement (by media, country and fellow citizens).
> 
> [endquote]
> 
> In other words, you're saying that we need for the educational system
> and the media to act contrary to the best financial interest of those
> who have controlling interest in them. Why should they do that?

Media has also some interest to serve their customers. And customers may sometimes appreciate good information. Different countries have quite different traditions here. There are also media that are not tightly controlled by "those who have controlling interest". I have received a lot of useful information from the media, but I'd like to receive even more.

> You've just shown that you _are_ making
> claims about the U.S. Must I retract the apology that I've just made?

Sorry, but you keep talking about the U.S. situation, so it is hard to avoid that topic totally :-). Because of the numerous misunderstandings I propose that you assume that my comments refer to election methods in general unless I mention "U.S.".

Juho