[EM] The election methods trade-off paradox/impossibility theorems paradox.

[Richard Lung]

Brian Olson,

Where we differ is that I do not see ranked choice as a constraint. 
Single order choice, the x-vote is the constraint on ranked voting as a 
multiple-order choice.
The problem with election methods, practical and theoretical is that 
they impose constraints on the voters freedom of choice, in one way or 
another, and so are that much less true election methods.
(A minor example, the classic objections to cumulative voting seem to 
apply to some apprently modern versions or variations.)

When Condorcet and Borda, disagreed on the best way to conduct a count 
of preference voting, Laplace decided in favor of Borda. (I grant you 
that Condorcet has information value, when weighted. But I am not well 
informed on this approach and know of no convincing reason why it should 
be adopted or how you would persuade the public of that.) JFS Ross 
explained that Laplace favored Method Borda because higher preferences 
were more important and should count more. The Gregory method removes 
the objection to Borda of "later harm." This is the direction I have 
followed (weighted count of ranked choice), following on from where Meek 
method STV leaves off.

Richard Lung





On 22/06/2017 15:01, Brian Olson wrote:
> I kinda don't accept this paradox. Just to compare the form of a 
> election method paradox statement: Arrow's theorem was that given a 
> set of desired properties and the constraint of rankings ballots, 
> those set of desirable properties could not all be simultaneously 
> fulfilled. One can almost trivially step outside of that paradox by 
> eliminating the constraint of the rankings ballot.
>
> My model of understanding people and elections is a utilitarian one. A 
> person derives some amount of utility from the outcome of an election 
> and everyone is apportioned the same share of utility which we might 
> count as 0..1 or -1..1 . These model persons can be summed up and and 
> a global social utility calculated. The ideal election method 
> perfectly knows every person and elects the true global social utility 
> maximizing candidate. This sounds an awful lot like score voting. But 
> then we have to start to complicate the model with imperfect knowledge 
> of a voter's utility, the imperfect expression of that on a ballot, 
> strategic ballot casting rather than honest, messy computation and 
> practical administration issues of running an election in the real 
> world, and so on. So we might wind up with a best practical method 
> that isn't just simple score voting.
>
> But I still believe there is a pragmatic 'best' method, we have 
> techniques for evaluating that, and we should do this and put 
> something up in the real world. Personally I'll take a rankings ballot 
> that's Condorcet counted with any cycle resolution method as 'good 
> enough' and practically applicable; and tinkering around the edges for 
> a slightly better method is fun mathematical curiosity but I'd also 
> like to get some laws passed.
>
> What do you think of my model statement?
> Is there a more formal statement of limitations you were heading towards?
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 2:30 AM, Richard Lung <voting at ukscientists.com 
> <mailto:voting at ukscientists.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
>     The election methods trade-off paradox/impossibility theorems paradox.
>
>
>     For the sake of argument, suppose a trade-off theory of elections
>     that there is no consistently democratic electoral system: the
>     impossibility supposition.
>
>     That supposition implies some conception (albeit non-existent) of
>     a consistently derived right election result.
>
>     If there is no such measure, then there is no standard even to
>     judge that there is a trade-off between electoral systems.
>
>     Suppose there is a consistent theory of choice, setting a standard
>     by which electoral systems can be judged for their democratic
>     consistency.
>
>     It follows that the election result will only be as consistent as
>     the electoral system, and there is no pre-conceivably right
>     election result, because that presupposes a perfection not given
>     to science as a progressive pursuit.
>
>
>
>     -- 
>     Richard Lung.
>     http://www.voting.ukscientists.com  <http://www.voting.ukscientists.com>
>     Democracy Science series 3 free e-books in pdf:
>     https://plus.google.com/106191200795605365085
>     E-books  <https://plus.google.com/106191200795605365085E-books>  in epub format:
>     https://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/democracyscience  <https://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/democracyscience>
>
>
>     ----
>     Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
>     list info
>
>


-- 
Richard Lung.
http://www.voting.ukscientists.com
Democracy Science series 3 free e-books in pdf:
https://plus.google.com/106191200795605365085
E-books in epub format:
https://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/democracyscience


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20170622/653ca6d0/attachment-0001.htm>