[EM] The tree is known by its fruits.

[robert bristow-johnson]

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------

Subject: Re: [EM] The tree is known by its fruits.

From: "Kristofer Munsterhjelm" <km_elmet at t-online.de>

Date: Sun, October 8, 2017 8:21 am

To: "Richard Lung" <voting at ukscientists.com>

"EM" <election-methods at lists.electorama.com>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------



> On 10/08/2017 01:26 PM, Richard Lung wrote:

>>

>>

>>

>> The tree is known by its fruits.

>>

>> So, election methods cannot be perfect. Whoever said they could?
...

>

> This all seems to be a matter of politics, as it were. The imperfection

> of voting methods mean that you have to choose which is best based on

> what behavior and criteria you value.

>
one important criterion for an election system for public office is transparency in the process (which, in my opinion, requires precinct-summability but there *could* be a klunky way to have an equivalent transparency with STV or IRV, which is not really precinct summable).
another
important criterion for an election system for public office is enough simplicity in the tabulation procedure and the manner the winner is decided.  this is where i disagree with Rob Richie and FairVote about IRV (which now they have appropriated the term "Ranked-Choice Voting" (RCV)
for IRV, which bothers me).  I assert that Condorcet (which Condorcet is a secondary issue) is simpler than IRV and is more simply extends the most fundamental principles that voters expect to keep from the familiar FPTP elections, which is equal voting weight for every voter ("one person
one vote") and in the expected result of a Condorcet Winner, resolving the election exactly as would happen between the winner and *any* of the losers.
IRV will decide an election the same as Condorcet if the CW gets to the final round (is either in 1st or 2nd place in first-preference
votes).  IRV will successful avoid IIA (a spoiled election) if the spoiler really had no chance winning (but gets enough votes in a close election to change the winner among other candidates).  but when there are three candidate, all roughly equal in support before the election, where the
outcome of the election could plausibly go any of three (or more) ways, the IRV fails.  In Burlington 2009, one candidate was the initial Plurality Winner, another was the Condorcet Winner, another was the IRV winner.  but the Plurality Winner was the spoiler.  it was the conservative
minority in the city that experiences the failed promise that "they could vote for the candidate the principally want without worry of helping elect the candidate they hate the most."   IRV was repealed but if it hadn't, these conservatives would have to tell themselves that they
must choose between "Liberal" and "More Liberal", because if they vote #1 for the candidate they really like, then More Liberal gets elected.  now we're back to FPTP with a 40% minimum.
my major harping or critique i have with FairVote is not recognizing the damage to
the cause of election reform when the method they push so hard to get some jurisdiction to consider and adopt, that if the method suffers a major failure soon after adoption (for Burlington it was the second IRV election after adoption) and gets promptly repealed, that it will set back election
reform for at least a generation (you gotta get some of the people who were screwed by the IRV screwup to die or move away for a bunch of fresh voters to consider reform).  so we really should push the better ranked-choice voting method than IRV.
i s'pose with some, i am preaching to the
choir, but i am also pragmatic and i think that *pragmatically* Condorcet is a better sell than IRV.
it turns out that Santa Fe is struggling to get RCV implemented (the voters adopted it nearly a decade ago, but it hasn't been implemented) and FairVote is advocating in this case, and Rob was
very disappointed in me when an op-ed i wrote for them to be a little wary about terminology and what they mean by "RCV".  the op-ed is
here: http://www.santafenewmexican.com/opinion/my_view/looking-in-the-differences-in-ranked-choice-voting/article_77d7e472-6876-529b-acc9-ca7fffdcc896.html  .
i dunno, do you think that i helped the cause or hurt the cause of election reform with that piece?
--
r b-j
                 rbj at audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20171009/63d0e721/attachment-0001.html>