[EM] No. Condorcet and Hare do not share the same problem with computational complexity and process transparency.

[Michael Garman]

Much of the opposition to STV came from the fact that it was electing —
shudder! black people and even communists — in a political climate where
those were seen as two of the worst traits a politician could have. That,
more than non-monotonicity, was what did it in in NYC and elsewhere. I
don’t find “reactionaries won’t like it” to be a convincing argument
against progress.


On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 6:08 PM Closed Limelike Curves <
closed.limelike.curves at gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm all for convincing people of the need for reform first and foremost
>> and then convincing them of specific methods later. Now, you could argue
>> that certain reforms would turn the public off the idea of structural
>> change once and for all, and I'd take those concerns seriously.
>>
> I don't think convincing people the current system is bad is very helpful
> unless you have a better alternative. People tend to flail about and pick
> the first system they think of or hear about—like IRV—and sometimes even
> pick a disastrous system like Borda. After a state or city picks a new
> system, they usually stick with it for decades out of pure inertia, meaning
> it locks us out of systems that actually improve the election's results. If
> nothing else, promoting these systems wastes time and effort that could be
> better-spent elsewhere.
>
> It's also easier to argue for a better policy than a worse one. If reform
> movements didn't have so many problems with Nobel-laureate economists and
> political scientists writing newspaper articles and papers about IRV not
> working that well, and didn't have major disasters like Alaska's 2022
> election to deal with, things would probably be an easier sell.
>
> It's worth noting we have a case study of this. During the Progressive Era
> in the 1910s, lots of US cities adopted new voting systems, typically STV.
> These rules survived only a few decades before repeal. Most famously, in
> New York, STV caused so many monotonicity failures that the city decided to
> kill the only large-scale proportional representation system in the United
> States after officials derided it for being a lottery.
>
> It's taken 100 years for the electoral reform movement to recover and get
> a second chance. I don't want to wait another 100 years for a reform that
> might actually stick this time.
>
> On Sun, Mar 24, 2024 at 4:12 PM Michael Garman <
> michael.garman at rankthevote.us> wrote:
>
>> >  Note that I'm not asking if you think the fool me twice problem is
>> likely to happen with IRV. Just whether it's reasonable for someone who
>> thinks enacting a (to his mind) flawed method can cause a backlash, to
>> not go for that method.
>>
>> For sure. It's a reasonable argument.
>>
>> I think the principal consideration to bear in mind is where the
>> opposition is coming from and what their arguments are. If I were an
>> activist in a community where the prevailing opinion was that reform was
>> necessary, I'd be all for having a debate about the merits of different
>> methods and the relative logistical complications they might pose.
>>
>> My concern right now is that most people aren't open to *any* reform,
>> and if the public-facing image they see is a reform movement that can't
>> even agree on a measure to push, they'll be even more skeptical. Not that
>> we can't or shouldn't have these debates, of course. But I think the
>> Seattle 2022 example -- where the IRV supporters were at fault! -- is
>> exactly the opposite of what we want to happen. Overall support for the
>> first part of the question -- the one that was essentially "should we scrap
>> FPP?" was way lower than it would have been if there hadn't been confusion
>> over competing proposals and the impression of a fractured reform community.
>>
>> I'm all for convincing people of the need for reform first and foremost
>> and then convincing them of specific methods later. Now, you could argue
>> that certain reforms would turn the public off the idea of structural
>> change once and for all, and I'd take those concerns seriously.
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 24, 2024 at 8:07 PM Kristofer Munsterhjelm <
>> km_elmet at t-online.de> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2024-03-20 09:57, Michael Garman wrote:
>>> > To be clear, I am by no means a believer that IRV is the only reform
>>> > worth pursuing, or that it’s anywhere close to the perfect system.
>>> >
>>> > Where Michael and I disagree is on the role of pragmatism. I believe
>>> > that any time an alternative to plurality voting is on the ballot,
>>> > voters should support it. I think the folks in Eugene, Oregon, should
>>> > vote yes on STAR. I think more places should try out approval. Beyond
>>> > those three, I read this list because I enjoy learning about
>>> completely
>>> > new and different systems that would be fascinating to see in practice
>>> > somewhere one day. But in a place where citizens are asked for an up
>>> or
>>> > down vote on IRV vs. FPTP, I don’t see how you can defend voting for
>>> the
>>> > worst possible system because the proposed reform isn’t exactly what
>>> > you’d like.
>>>
>>> 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".
>>>
>>> Suppose for the sake of argument that there is a considerable chance
>>> that Borda would be repealed if it were enacted, and a lesser chance
>>> that MDDA would. Is then John in the right to withhold his support for
>>> Borda? Would it be right for the MDDA organization to try to counter the
>>> Borda organization's marketing by saying more ranked methods exist, even
>>> if doing so reduces the chance that Borda is enacted?
>>>
>>> Note that I'm not asking if you think the fool me twice problem is
>>> likely to happen with IRV. Just whether it's reasonable for someone who
>>> thinks enacting a (to his mind) flawed method can cause a backlash, to
>>> not go for that method.
>>>
>>> -km
>>>
>> ----
>
>
>> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
>> info
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20240325/ae3f50e2/attachment.htm>