[EM] 28 years of progress and a wakeup call

[Closed Limelike Curves]

This list started in 1996. I was born 3 years later, in 1999.

Six years before I was born, and 3 years before this list was started,
Myerson and Weber proved that approval (and score, highest medians, or )
will elect the Condorcet winner. This is true as long as voters use a
strategy even a brain-dead turnip could work out: set your approval
threshold between the frontrunners.

This infuriates me. *This* *should not be my problem*. The problem of
electing Condorcet winners in spite of strategic voting was solved *a full
generation ago*. I should be waking up every election day to news that a
new state has adopted score/STAR/Bucklin/[insert your Condorcet variant
that manages to satisfy nonelection of turkeys here, assuming one exists. I
think maximal lotteries fit the bill].

A brief digression now to thank some of the people who have done their best
to fix this problem and thank them for their hard work. Most notably, Rob
Lanphier and all the people who have gone on to work for Equal Vote, the
Center for Election Science, etc. have done so, so much to popularize
better voting methods.

On the other hand, I'd like to offer a response I got from someone after I
wrote my simple description of Schulze.

> Thank you for your recasting in Plain English, from a former technical
> editor of a policy manual.



I really appreciate finally understanding the election techspeak about
> beatpaths that's permeated this list for about 28 years.


*Twenty-eight years!* It took *twenty-eight years *for someone on this list
to clearly explain Schulze to the *technical editor of a policy manual!* No
*wonder* we've had our asses handed to us by FairVote. We refuse to give up
our pedantry at the altar of *using* *normal words!*

This list has had a massive impact on popular discussions of voting
systems, mostly through its influence on Wikipedia. Articles like IRV,
Schulze method, Arrow's theorem, etc. get hundreds of hits *per day, *and
are the main source for most people's information on electoral systems.
Before my edits over the past few months, my guess is almost every one of
them came away with the exact same impression I (a young teenager) had when
I first stumbled on these in 2014: "Huh? OK, I guess I'll support IRV then.
I heard CGPGrey say it solves the spoiler effect or something. I guess
every voting system is basically the same because of Gibbard's theorem and
Arrow's theorem, or something."

The effect of this communication strategy, which emphasizes minor
mathematical detail, technical language, and comparing systems based on
long lists of criteria rather than memorable scenarios or social utility
efficiency, has been to entrench IRV as the only alternative to FPP,
because nobody understands any other alternative.

The feedback I've gotten since starting to make these fixes to Wikipedia
has so far been mixed in this list, but unanimous in conversations with
everyday people. From Wiki editors and this email list, the response has
often involved nitpicking phrasing based on 12-dimensional mathematics,
philosophy, or a strict interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines. The
response from normal people, every time I link them to the newly-improved
version of the article, has been "Oh! I get it now, that finally makes
sense. Why didn't anyone explain it like that before?!"

Please:
1. Be polite and helpful.
2. Use smaller words. No LaTeX or single-letter variable names.
3. Avoid minor details like handling ties.
4. Emphasize what's important. Don't get sidetracked in discussing minor
problems like strategy. What matters is each method's Condorcet efficiency
and social utility efficiency, and whether it's better than IRV's.
5. Put material where people will read it. That means *Wikipedia.* If you
can't put it there, put it on Arxiv, *then* put it on Wikipedia. If you put
it on Arxiv first, it's not original research anymore. :)
6. Put the important material in the lede. Only about 3% of Wiki users read
past the lede.
7. Tell the truth. Don't lie or exaggerate or mislead about your favorite
method. Don't say stuff like "Condorcet methods only have strategy if
there's a cycle", because people will just google that and immediately
learn not to trust you.
8. Focus on what matters, and what we can all agree on: we need to beat the
everloving shit out of IRV. Even if you hate every other voting method
that's been proposed on this list, that doesn't matter. FairVote is the
biggest obstacle standing between us and meaningful election reform.

In 10 years or so, the knowledge will have fully percolated down into the
electorate (much like how FairVote's edits to the IRV article have become
gospel faith for every liberal commentator over the past 10 years).

If you disagree with everything I've said and hate my guts, please let me
know at my other email, which is robrichie at fairvote.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20240521/650dfd6f/attachment.htm>