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

[Michael Ossipoff]

On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 7:30 AM, Juho Laatu <juho4880 at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> 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).

So you keep repeating. But, in this country, the 1-party monopoly
_wouldn't_ happen without the media fraud that I've discussed.

You're quite vague and vacillatory about whether you're speaking of
the U.S. or whether you're speaking in general. You said "would happen
also without media". Where would it happen also without media?
Plurality preserves the 1-party system only because people have been
continually told about "the [supposedly] two choices". Sure, Plurality
would still have its problems, regardless of the nature of the media.
But there is a known optimal strategy in Plurality--a winning strategy
for a sufficiently large group. Without our media-fraud, nothing would
be preventing voters from voting optimally in Plurality, making good
use of Plurality, despite its problems.

But that isn't an important enough point to argue about, because our
fraud-pushing media aren't going to go away. So it's really irrelevant
what would happen without them.
>
>>> 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.

Your fallacy is your implication that there are other necessary
properties, lacking in Approval , Score, and Symmetrical ICT, but
possessed by unimproved Condorcet  ...if unimproved Condorcet is what
you're suggesting. And if unimproved Condorcet isn't what you're
suggesting,then what is it that you're suggesting?

If there's something that they don't do well enough, and that
unimproved Condorcet does well enough then you forgot to tell what it
is.

>> 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.

Maybe enough to speculate. Certainly, at that distance, not enough to
speak with any authority about how Americans would vote under various
conditions.

>
>> 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.
>
You said:

> 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".

[endquote]

You're all confused. Leaders and gullibles weren't made for eachother
in the literal Creationist sense. They gradually evolved, in a
"symbiosis" such as you described, in which they both optimized their
outcomes (or at least ensured a fairly acceptable one).

When I said "made for eachother", I meant "made for eachother by
evolution". I thought that I'd made that clear in my previous posting.

The problem is that, under modern conditions, the former "symbiosis"
has turned into something else, something that isn't good.


> 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.

You're describing one of the 3 components that I said is necessary for
our 1-party monopoly:
Plurality, media-fraud, and a gullible electorate.

Now you're speaking of the 2nd component, media fraud.

>
>>> 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 should do.

Then you don't try hard enough. You keep making authoritatively-worded
statements to the effect that unimproved Condorcet would work fine in
the U.S. Sometimes you insist that you're only speaking in general,
but then you go back to specifically making that statement about the
U.S.

You said:

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.

[endquote]

...then you often violate your own preference  :-)

>> 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.

A customer is defined as someone who pays for something. The media's
biggest customers aren't the public.

You said:

And customers may sometimes appreciate good information.

[endquote]

No doubt the public would appreciate good information--if they ever
received any. But since they don't know the difference, it's easy to
give them not-so-god information. That's where the money is.


You said:

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.

[endquote]

Quite so. Media quality varies greatly among countries.


>> 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 :-).

Well, at least now you're admitting that you do make claims about how
Americans would vote in unimproved Condorcet.

Forgive me for talking about the U.S. situation. This is an electoral
methods website. The suitability of a voting system depends on the
nature of the electorate for which it's proposed. The U.S could use a
better voting system. So yes, I do talk about the U.S. situation.
That's where I reside, you know?

I'm not saying that you should "avoid that topic totally" or even that
you should avoid it any.

I'm merely pointing out that your claims about how Americans would
vote are lacking in authority.

You said:

Because of the numerous misunderstandings I propose that you assume
that my comments refer to election methods in general unless I mention
"U.S.".

[endquote]

Fine. ...unless you say "U.S." or otherwise indicate such reference.
But you need to avoid making sweeping statements which, taken
literally, are about all countries.

Mike Ossipoff