[EM] Academic paradox of election methods.

[Richard Lung]

"no...perfect election method" -- an empty statement. Science does not 
claim perfection but seeks progress in knowledge.
Contra "you have to decide what's important,"    the  reference to  HG 
Wells is, from  "The Elements of Reconstruction" 1916: Voting method is 
not a matter of opinion but a matter of demonstration.

Richard Lung.


On 24/09/2017 14:31, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
> On 09/24/2017 10:45 AM, Richard Lung wrote:
>> The academic paradox of election methods.
>>
>> The widespread assertion that there is no such thing as right and 
>> wrong, in election methods, is a paradox. If this statement were 
>> right, it would contradict itself, and is therefore wrong. If this 
>> statement were wrong, it would still contradict itself, and therefore 
>> be right: in other words, it is right to say this assertion is wrong.
>>
>> Over half a century of academic apology, for the world anarchy of 
>> election methods, is a paradox.
>
> Gibbard-Satterthwaite and Arrow say there's no such thing as a perfect 
> election method. It doesn't say that this implies that every method is 
> equally bad. All it means is that you have to decide what's important 
> and then choose the election method on that basis since you can't have 
> it all. Somewhat like politics in general, perhaps?
>
>> This academic paradox complements the political paradox of electing 
>> an election system by referendum.
>>
>> Without knowing the right election method for electing an election, 
>> there is no way of knowing how to elect it. If you do know, the 
>> election of an election is superfluous. This supports HG Wells 
>> awareness that voting method is not a matter of opinion but of 
>> demonstration.
>
> You could always do it by a combination of referendum and 
> deliberation; or in general, by a method that would be impractical to 
> use on every election (like repeated balloting).
>
> One example of this would be BC's Citizens' Assembly for Electoral 
> Reform recommending STV as the new voting method; another would be New 
> Zealand's two stage referendum, where the first vote was about whether 
> the system should be changed, and the second was about what it should 
> be changed to.
>
> It's also possible that (in the right circumstances), you could get a 
> convergence to better methods. E.g. suppose election method X was 
> replaced with method Y which, though somewhat better, is not ideal. 
> Then later, Y is replaced by Z which in turn improves on Y. However, I 
> think that's less likely since voting reform is such a tough thing to 
> accomplish even once.
>

-- 
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