[EM] [CES #8967] Score Voting and Approval Voting not practically substantially different from Plurality?
Benjamin Grant
benn at 4efix.com
Tue Jun 25 15:24:57 PDT 2013
Stephen doesn't realize that unless one speaks with reason and dispassion,
others may not even bother to read what one has written.
Stephen doesn't realize that speaking about someone in the third person in
front of them is a major dick move - or is *trying* to be a dick.
Stephen is actually acting like the only goal he has is defending a fragile
ego, acting out of fear out of concern for his alpha male status - not
truth.
Stephen is being passive aggressive.
You know how I know this? Because everything Stephen said could have been
said just the same either directly to me or without even mentioning my name
at all.
Nice work, Stephen. When you want to rejoin the adult table, hopefully I
will have as well. ;) Until then, 2 notes:
1) if you want rational discussion with me, you have to dig yourself out of
your hole before I will take it seriously.
2) if you just keeping acting like a jerk to me, I have no problem calling
you on it.
So, got it out of your system now?
-Benn Grant
-----Original Message-----
From: electionscience at googlegroups.com
[mailto:electionscience at googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Unger
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 5:46 PM
To: electionsciencefoundation
Cc: EM
Subject: Re: [CES #8967] Score Voting and Approval Voting not practically
substantially different from Plurality?
Benn doesn't seem to be able to distinguish between supporting candidates
who might be acceptable to varying degrees, and rejecting unacceptable
candidates, who may vary among themselves to varying degrees.
I differ with Libertarians on some substantial issues, but also agree with
them on major issues that, at this time, are of critical importance.
Especially because I am not worried that they would destroy what remains of
our democracy, I would probably vote to approve their candidates, or give
them relatively high scores.
Of course the Ds and Rs are not identical. Their rhetoric is certainly very
different, and there are some relatively less important issues on which they
differ. I do find it very sad that there are still decent, intelligent
people who, after over 5 years of Obama, have still not recognized the
damage he is doing to our country. While Bush was fairly straightforward in
stating his positions he was not able to institutionalize the damage he did.
There was audible, if not very effective, opposition to Bush. But when Obama
put Wall Streeters in charge of our economy and government finances, refuses
to do anything about climate change, is chiseling away at social security,
etc., those who protested when Bush did such things lost their voices. E.g.,
the Patriot Act, once considered an outrageous intrusion on liberty, is now
accepted by the bipartisan establishment, and liberals are silent.
People like Benn apparently still don't get it. I suggest that my "outburst"
and unhappiness is very rationally based, while Benn is closing his eyes to
what is going on.
Re the Supreme Court, I am not impressed with Obama's choices, or those of
other recent Democrats. In addition to putting some very bad justices on the
court (sometimes with substantial support from
Democrats) Republican presidents appointed Souter, Stevens, and Blackmun,
probably the three best justices appointed over the past several decades.
Benn also does not seem to recognize that an election is important, not only
in terms of who wins, but also in how strong a showing other candidates
make. Here is where approval and score voting are potentially very valuable.
They make it possible for new parties and candidates to build strength to
the point where they can win elections. I.e., lesser evil fans can vote for
BOTH the LE and one or more decent candidates.
I also believe that there is too much emphasis being given to combatting
"strategic voting". With the exception of lesser eviling, which, I suppose,
could be considered in this category, this is not such a big problem, and
certainly should not be used as an excuse for supporting voting systems that
prevent voters from expressing their views maximally, or which have terrible
pathologies.
Steve
............
Stephen H. Unger
Professor Emeritus
Computer Science and Electrical Engineering Columbia University ............
On Tue, 25 Jun 2013, Benjamin Grant wrote:
> I am surprised to see a lesser of evils argument rejected by someone
> on a list about election methods, all of which seem to have
> significant downsides. I guess I find it ironic that someone thinking
> about merits and flaws of one voting system over another isn't more
> comfortable with the lesser of evils approach.
> I wasn't trying to start an argument, my point on this subject is
> ultimately a dry and I think a non-controversial one. If there are
> choices (such as an election) in which there are several unequal
> results, it is in our best interests to choose the option that best
> answers our needs and preferences. In my experience, people who reject
> voting for the lesser of evils do so not because they have any reason
> to think that such a choice yields a better future, but because either
> 1) it is a non rational outburst caused by being deeply unhappy at not
> having better options or, 2) the failure to see that all choices aren't
identical.
>
> I cannot do much about #1, but for any that are in camp #2 (and I
> think that a lot of (but not all) people who *think* they are in camp
> #2 are really in camp #1), any group of candidates, even if bought and
> paid for by the same corporate interests, *are* going to prioritize
> their actions differently. Even candidates that are 90% the same have
> a 10% difference that, on the world stage, makes a HUGE difference.
>
> Or to put another way, the supreme court would be VERY different in a
> Democrat hadn't won the last two elections.
>
> Make sense?
>
> We don't have to like our options, but it is in our best interest to
> choose the best one among them, even if that simply means the least
> awful. I am not saying this is a happy fact, just a pragmatic one.
> Either way, it is simply true.
>
> -Benn
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Stephen Unger
> <unger at cs.columbia.edu>
> wrote:
> I guess that means that I am either unintelligent or a
> conservative. I'll choose the latter, altho many who call
> themselves
> conservative (except, perhaps Libertarians, who I am in accord
> with on
> the crucial issues of civil liberties and militarism) might
> disagree
> when they hear my views on various matters. For example, I
> don't think
> it is "conservative" to support the kind of police state that
> is now
> virtually established here, with the Bill of Rights being
> systematically shredded. Nor do I think it is conservative to
> allow
> our environment to be trashed, to allow marketing of
> inadequately
> tested pharmaceuticals, or to send drones to murder people all
> over
> the world.
>
> I don't think the above (abbreviated) list describes what one
> would
> normally think of as "progressives" either. Regarding election
> politics, my view is that Obama and the rest of the Democratic
> Party
> leadership does not represent what "liberals" call "the lesser
> evil",
> but rather what Bruce Dixon of the Black Agenda Report has
> characterized as "the more effective evil".
>
> It is obvious that, with the slick con man Obama in the White
> House,
> opposition by "liberals" to policies at least as bad as those
> of the
> awful Republicans under Bush is virtually nil. E.g., polls
> indicate
> that most Democrats now support government email snooping,
> which they
> opposed when Bush was president. (Most Republicans supported
> this
> under Bush and now oppose it.)
Seehttp://www.people-press.org/2013/06/10/majority-views-nsa-phone-tracking-
a
> s-acceptable-anti-terror-tactic/
>
> If we had approval voting, I would definitely NOT approve Rs
> and Ds,
> would approve the Greens and, depending on some details, would
> probably approve the Libertarians. (I did not vote for Clinton,
> Gore,
> Kerry, or Obama, and would not have approved any of them if
> that
> option had been available.
>
> I believe that the "lesser evil" concept has been a major
> factor in
> bringing us to the point where all the elements of a fascist
> state are
> now in place, and it is just a question of time before they are
> scaled
> up to make it obvious to all. So far I don't see any
> significant
> opposition, particularly from young people.
>
> Steve
> ............
>
> Stephen H. Unger
> Professor Emeritus
> Computer Science and Electrical Engineering
> Columbia University
> ............
>
> On Mon, 24 Jun 2013, Benjamin Grant wrote:
>
>
> “Most non-conservative are intelligent enough to
> see that Gore and Bush are
> equally bad from their point of view.”
>
>
>
> was supposed to be
>
>
>
> “Most non-conservative are intelligent enough to
> see that Gore and Bush are
> NOT equally bad from their point of view.”
>
>
>
> My typing sucks and always has. You lucky bastards
> get to try to read what
> I write. ;)
>
>
>
> -Benn Grant
>
> eFix Computer Consulting
>
> benn at 4efix.com
>
> 603.283.6601
>
>
>
> From: electionscience at googlegroups.com
> [mailto:electionscience at googlegroups.com] On Behalf
> Of Benjamin Grant
> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 11:40 AM
> To: electionsciencefoundation
> Cc: EM
> Subject: Re: [CES #8924] Score Voting and Approval
> Voting not practically
> substantially different from Plurality?
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Stephen Unger
> <unger at cs.columbia.edu>
> wrote:
>
> One point overlooked here is that any new
> party has to go thru
> an
> incubation period during which it has
> virtually no chance of
> winning. Voting for such a party helps
> strengthen it, and makes
> it
> more likely that others will support it next
> time around. At
> some
> point it may become a contender, and then it
> might actually
> start
> winning elections. If you cast votes (approve
> or give high
> scores to)
> only for parties that might win the current
> election, then we
> will be
> stuck forever with the existing 2-party scam.
>
>
>
> It doesn't seem like you are saying I am wrong
> about that, you just seem
> unhappy that I am right?
>
>
>
> And under Score/Approval/Plurality voting systems,
> there would be three
> phases a party might go through:
>
>
>
> A) unpopular enough not to be a spoiler
>
> B) popular enough to be a spoiler, but not popular
> enough to win
>
> C) popular enough to win often (>25% of the time,
> for example.)
>
>
>
> On your way to C, you are going to have a LOT of B,
> and you may never make
> it to C, especially if people get burned voting for
> the emerging party by
> getting their least preferred candidate.
>
>
>
> The only way to build a strong new party in
> reality, as far as I can see,
> is to have a voting system that does not penalize
> you into getting your
> least favored choice by voting for your most
> favored one.
>
>
>
> Voters may have many different philosophies,
> and the voting
> system
> should accommodate as many as possible.
>
>
>
> I don't know that I agree with either side of this.
> Voters ultimately, by
> and large and by definition, I think, want the best
> outcome possible. If
> Nader isn't a real possibility, then a
> non-conservation wants Gore FAR
> ahead of Bush. Most non-conservative are
> intelligent enough to see that
> Gore and Bush are equally bad from their point of
> view. And most would
> rate the election of Bush far more a likely than
> the election of Nader, and
> even if it was a coind toss among all three
> (Gore/Nader/Bush) most would
> rightly view stopping Bush as more critical than
> helping Nader beat Gore.
>
>
>
> It is easily possible that, in the same SV
> election, voters A and B
>
> both score 3 candidates, C1, C2, C3, as 9,
> 0, 0, respectively
> for
> different reasons. A might consider C2 and C3
> both to be
> terrible,
> while B might consider C2 to be perhaps a 4
> or 5, but chooses 0
> because of concern that C2 might defeat C1. A
> third voter with
> views
> similar to C2's might score the candidates
> as 9, 5, 0. All are
> perfectly legitimate actions. Since we cannot
> distinguish
> between
> pairs such as A and B, it is not appropriate
> to try to alter
> the
> voting system so as to prevent voters from
> acting
> "strategically". (I
> think it would be a good idea to urge voters
> to cast SV votes
> that
> accurately correspond to their appraisals,
> and candidates might
> do
> well to so advise their supporters.)
>
>
>
> Again, is it *theoretically possible" that Nader
> voters might prefer Bush
> to Gore, but in the real world, progressive tend to
> see democrats as far
> superior to republicans, and libertarians tend to
> see republicans as far
> superior to democrats. Ignoring that seems like a
> bad idea.
>
>
>
> Efforts to change the voting system to nullify or
> prevent strategic
>
> voting lead to systems that restrict the
> voter's options. E.g,
> median-based score voting, in effect,
> restricts the extent to
> which a
> voter can support a candidate.
>
>
>
> First of all, is "efforts to ... nullify or prevent
> strategic voting" the
> same meaning as "efforts to make sincere voting
> produce similar choices to
> strategic voting."?
>
>
>
> Second of all, it seems to me that the less
> divergence there is between
> strategic and sincere voting, the more beneficial
> qualities the voting
> system has, such as:
>
> -we can worry less about the spoiler effect, which
> promotes more than just
> 2 parties
>
> -we can worry less that people are accidentally
> voting against their
> interests
>
> -we can have fewer debates about whether people
> have an obligation to vote
> strategically or sincerely
>
>
>
> This would seem to be a good thing.
>
>
>
> But ultimately, I don't think you answered my
> central questions (and pardon
> me if you did and I just don't see it):
>
>
>
> · Intelligent use of Score Voting becomes
> Approval Voting, and
> the harm in unwise use of Score voting means that
> Approval Voting is
> superior to (and simpler than) Score voting
> pragmatically.
>
> · Approval Voting tends to result in
> irrelevant approval votes
> being given to weak candidates – which is
> pointless, or slightly stronger
> (but still losing) candidates can once again
> present a spoiler effect where
> a person’s least preferred choice is elected
> because they cast their
> approval only toward their most preferred choice,
> who was nowhere near
> supported enough to stop their least preferred
> choice.
>
>
> Am I substantially wrong about any of this?
> Ultimately, in real
> and practical terms, it seems that done
> intelligently, Score Voting
> devolves into Approval Voting, and Approval Voting
> devolves into Plurality
> Voting.
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are
> subscribed to the Google Groups
> "The Center for Election Science" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving
> emails from it, send an
> email to
> electionscience+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit
> https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are
> subscribed to the Google Groups
> "The Center for Election Science" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving
> emails from it, send an
> email to
> electionscience+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit
> https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
> Google Groups "The Center for Election Science" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from
> it, send an email to
> electionscience+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit
> https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "The Center for Election Science" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to electionscience+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"The Center for Election Science" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to electionscience+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list