[EM] Appreciation for KM.

[robert bristow-johnson]

> On 03/24/2024 3:03 PM EDT Kristofer Munsterhjelm <km_elmet at t-online.de> wrote:
> 
>  
> On 2024-03-19 22:06, Closed Limelike Curves wrote:
> > I think Kris is mostly correct when he says this:
> > 
> >> Over time, this incentive to entry could reduce STAR to Range.
> > 
> > but I see this as intentional. Score and approval are great systems on 
> > their own.
> 
> In the mail I responded to, Rob said:
> 
> >>> I don't feel comfortable with the strategy burden imposed on
> >>> voters by plain "score voting" (a.k.a. "range voting").  Most of
> >>> us agree that  the best strategy for "score/range" is a "min/max"
> >>> strategy....basically, turn the election into an approval
> >>> election.  It doesn't seem fair to have a system that requires
> >>> voters who want to maximize the utility of their ballot to know
> >>> enough about the system to  know the "min/max" strategy.
> 
> So if you agree that STAR will reduce to Range, that's fine, because my 
> point then stands: if Rob's not comfortable with the strategic burden of 
> Range, and STAR reduces to Range, then that's a problem for STAR.
> 
> > They elect Condorcet winners in the presence of strategy, but 
> > score does /better/ than Condorcet if voters are honest. They satisfy 
> > sincere favorite, IIA, and rarely incentivize order reversal. It's hard 
> > to design something better that won't hurt the average voter's brain.
> 
> IIA is a means to an end, and that end is that the outcome shouldn't 
> change if candidates who don't win enter or leave. For Range, although 
> it passes IIA, we still don't get that end unless the voters' ratings 
> are calibrated to a scale or scales that don't depend on the candidates 
> who are present.
> 
> How would you suggest that such a calibration be done?
> 
> If it can't be done, then Range's IIA compliance, while nice in a 
> box-ticking way, doesn't really do what it implies it does.
> 

<clapping>

> On 03/24/2024 3:07 PM EDT Kristofer Munsterhjelm <km_elmet at t-online.de> wrote:
> 
...
> 
> What do you think about the following reasoning? Call it the "fool me 
> twice" problem.
> 
> Suppose that a jurisdiction is considering switching from FPTP to Borda. 
> The main organization is heavily marketing Borda as the one ranked 
> voting system, equating the ranked ballot format to Borda, the method.
> 
> Meanwhile, an organization promoting MDDA (majority defeat 
> disqualification approval) is slowly growing. Someone (call him John) 
> favors MDDA and thinks that due to Borda's clone problem, it will 
> quickly be repealed. Then, he reasons, the jurisdiction will think that 
> ranking equals Borda, so that when some other ranked method is proposed 
> (MDDA, say), they will remember the failure of Borda that led to its 
> repeal and say "no; fool me twice, shame on me".
>

This reflects my attitude perfectly.  Course corrections are less costly early in the voyage.  Before Hare RCV gets entrenched deeper, it's best to recognize these unnecessary flaws in IRV demonstrated by the Burlington and Alaska RCV elections that may both get repealed within a couple of years of an anomalous election with a lotta people that wonder if it was an "honest" election.  And then head the problem (the consequences IRV failing to elect the CW) off before it occurs again.

Now unfortunately for Burlington Vermont it's "Fool me once, just wait 12 years and we'll forget."  And it's unlikely (because the GOP is now so weak in Burlington) to happen again, so these deniers will feel validated in time.  But over the U.S. (or the world), we know that this Center Squeeze failure will happen again with the consequence of a spoiled election and sincere voters getting burned.  The problem is if this failure isn't repeated at the same jurisdiction where some of the same people ask themselves "weren't we here before?", then it's unlikely that enough voters will notice the flaw (and its consequences) that very rarely happens.  I think FairVote is banking on that.

--

r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj at audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

.
.
.