<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On Jul 7, 2011, at 3:54 PM, Russ Paielli wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">Let me just elaborate on my concerns about complexity. Most of you probably know most of this already, but let me just try to summ it up and put things in perspective.<br><br>Some of the participants on this list are advanced mathematicians, and they have been discussing these matters for years. As you all know, the topic of election methods and voting systems can get very complicated. As far as I know, there is still no consensus even on this list on what is the best system. If there is no consensus here, how can you expect to get a consensus among the general public?</blockquote><div><br></div>Because we, hopefully, honor the different rules that make sense when we are voting for the public, rather than what you properly complain about.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite">But let's suppose a consensus is reached here on the EM list. What happens next? You need to generate public awareness, which is a major task. As far as the general public is concerned, there is no problem with the voting system per se. Voters vote, and the votes are counted. The candidate with the most votes wins. What else do you need?</blockquote><div><br></div>Need to start, before listening to your words, with how to let the voters express their desires - something some of them realize need of already.<blockquote type="cite"> <br>So let's say we somehow manage to get widespread public awareness of the deficiencies of the current plurality system. Then what? Eventually, and actual change has to go through Congress. Try to imagine Senator Blowhard grilling the experts on the proposed rules of their favorite system. It would certainly be good for one thing: fodder for Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert!</blockquote><div><br></div>Congress is important for later - need to start with more lolcal targets.<br><blockquote type="cite"><br>Also, consider the fierce opposition that would develop from any group that thinks they would suffer. And who might that be? How about the two major parties! Do you think they would have the power to stop it? For starters, they would probably claim that any "complicated" vote transfer algorithm cannot be used because it is not in the Constitution.</blockquote><div><br></div>Constitution? Anyway, need to have a plan to have some idea about who might agree/oppose.<blockquote type="cite"> <br>I realize that IRV has garnered considerable support and success. I suppose that's a tribute to the "open-mindedness" of ultra-leftist enclaves such as SF and Berkeley. On the other hand, it just goes to show that a fundamentally flawed system can be sold in such enclaves.</blockquote><div><br></div>Above you said selling would be undoable; here you say what should never get bought has demonstrated possibility of selling such?</div><div><br></div><div>Dave Ketchum<br><blockquote type="cite"><br>Sorry if I'm coming across as negative. I'm just trying to be realistic. I am a Republican, and I got interested again in the whole EM thing because of what I see happening in the Republican primary, with so many candidates to split the vote and so many potential voters seemingly oblivious to the problem. I wish there were a good, viable solution, but I just don't see it happening in the foreseeable future. <br> <br>--Russ P.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Dave Ketchum <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:davek@clarityconnect.com">davek@clarityconnect.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> Russ and Andrew each offer important thoughts.<br> <br> Russ is right that overly complex methods will likely get rejected - and I agree they deserve such, though Approval is not near to a reasonable limit.<br> <br> And Andrew is right that voters can accept something beyond Approval. Reviewing the steps as voters might think of them:<br> . Approval is simply being able to voye for more than one, as if equals - easy to vote and easy to implement, but makes you wish for more.<br> . Condorcet adds ranking, so you can vote for unequals such as Good that you truly like and Soso as second choice for being better than Bad, that you would happily forget.<br> . Reasonable part of the ranking is ranking two or more as equally ranked.<br> <br> So I looked for what Andrew was referring to as CIVS - seems like it deserves more bragging than I have heard. Voters can easily get invited and vote via Internet in the flexibility doable that way. Read more at <a href="http://www.cs.cornell.edu/andru/civs.html" target="_blank">http://www.cs.cornell.edu/<u></u>andru/civs.html</a><br> <br> Seems like CIVS would be good to use as is in many places where voting via Internet makes sense - and shows using Condorcet - something adaptable to the way we normally do elections.<br><font color="#888888"> <br> Dave Ketchum</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br> <br> On Jul 6, 2011, at 1:48 PM, Andrew Myers wrote:<br> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> On 7/22/64 2:59 PM, Russ Paielli wrote:<br> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> ...I eventually realized I was kidding myself to think that those schemes will ever see the light of day in major public elections. What is the limit of complexity that the general public will accept on a large scale? I don't know, but I have my doubts that anything beyond simple Approval will ever pass muster -- and even that will be a hard sell.<br> </blockquote> My experience with CIVS suggests that ranking choices is perfectly comprehensible to ordinary people. There have been more than 3,000 elections run using CIVS, and more than 60,000 votes cast. These are not technically savvy voters for the most part. To pick a few groups rather arbitrarily, CIVS is being used daily by plant fanciers, sports teams, book clubs, music lovers, prom organizers, beer drinkers, fraternities, church groups, PBeM gamers, and families naming pets and (!) children.<br> <br> If anything, to me ranking choices seems easier than Approval, because the voter doesn't have to think about where to draw the approve/disapprove cutoff, which I fear also encourages voters to think strategically.<br> <br> -- Andrew</blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></body></html>