<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2011/8/5 Dave Ketchum <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:davek@clarityconnect.com">davek@clarityconnect.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>Brought out for special thought:</div><div class="im"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><div>rating is easier than ranking. You can express this computationally, by saying that ranking requires O(n˛) pairwise comparisons of candidates (or perhaps for some autistic savants who heap-sort in their head, O[n log(n)]), while rating requires O(n) comparisons of candidates against an absolute scale. You can express it empirically; this has been confirmed by ballot spoilage rates, speed, and self-report in study after study. </div>
</blockquote></blockquote><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><div><span></span></div></blockquote></blockquote></div><div>This somehow does not fit as to rating vs ranking. I look at A and B, doing comparisons as needed, and assign each a value to use:</div>
<div>. For ranking the values can show which exist: A<B, A=B, or A>B, and can be used as is unless they need to be converted to whatever format may be acceptable. </div></div></blockquote><div> </div><div>I'm sorry, I don't understand this sentence.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>. For rating the values need to be scaled.</div></div></blockquote>
<div><br></div><div>There is no need to scale rating values for MJ. In fact, it is not the intention. A vote of "Nader=Poor, Gore=Good, Bush=Fair" is perfectly valid and probably fully strategic even on a ballot which includes "Unacceptable, Poor, Fair, Good, Excellent".</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>Thus what needs doing is a trivial bit of extra effort for rating. The comparison effort was shared.</div>
<div><br></div><div>"Ballot spoilage rates" also puzzle. Where can I find what magic lets non-Condorcet have less such than Condorcet, for I do not believe such magic exists, unless Condorcet is given undeserved problems.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Right, I was thinking of strict ranking when I wrote that part.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div class="im"><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><div><span></span></div></blockquote></blockquote><span>On Aug 5, 2011, at 8:57 AM, Jameson Quinn wrote:</span></div>
<div><div class="im"><blockquote type="cite">If I understand Robert correctly, I think that his concern is to find whichever system gets good results, while still leaving the voters' job crystal-clear. In particular, the first priority would be to find a system which puts the minimum burden of strategic thinking on the voter. Insofar as it's consistent with this first priority, his other priorities are to simplify the ballot and to elect a better winner.<div>
<br></div><div>He says that he finds Condorcet to beat Range, Approval, IRV, and Plurality on those priorities. I can't say I disagree. There is no question that the average voter can get away with less strategizing under Condorcet than under any of those systems. Range and Approval both give significantly more power to a voter who can correctly guess which two candidates are the frontrunners; and a conscientious voter simply can't leave it up to the law of averages to balance out that power between themself and those crazies on the other side. And IRV and Plurality both require lesser-evil thinking and favorite betrayal, which is worse.</div>
<div><br></div><div>But I would contend that, just as clearly, both Majority Judgment and SODA beat Condorcet by these criteria. These are two very-different systems, so I'll tackle them separately.</div><div><br></div>
<div>Why is Majority Judgment easier on the voter than Condorcet? First and foremost, because rating is easier than ranking. You can express this computationally, by saying that ranking requires O(n˛) pairwise comparisons of candidates (or perhaps for some autistic savants who heap-sort in their head, O[n log(n)]), while rating requires O(n) comparisons of candidates against an absolute scale. You can express it empirically; this has been confirmed by ballot spoilage rates, speed, and self-report in study after study. You can look at the trend of websites - Yelp, IMDB, Amazon, and an interminable etc., all use ratings. HotOrNot explicitly experimented with FaceMash-style comparisons and found that even a single two-way comparison was harder for users than ratings.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Second, MJ has, if anything, less of a strategic incentive than Condorcet. Balinski and Laraki found that, in a simulation seeded by real polled ballots from the 2007 French presidential election, the MJ result was more likely to be stable under strategy than the Condorcet result. Warren Smith has argued that, if you know who the two frontrunners are, a Condorcet burial strategy is essentially risk-free, while saving cognitive effort. In MJ, on the other hand, chances are that your honest vote is already getting all possible benefits from such a strategy.</div>
<div><br></div><div>The last two paragraphs may seem counterintuitive to people who are used to thinking of ratings ballots in Range terms. That's because, in Range, some amount of strategic thinking is almost totally inevitable. It would be ridiculous to mark a Range ballot by simply rating each candidate on an absolute scale, without normalizing so that you marked at least one max and one min vote. And voting power continues to increase as you move towards an approval-style ballot. With MJ, on the other hand, even a non-normalized vote with no max or min ratings could well have full strategic voting power. </div>
<div><br></div><div>As to ballot simplicity, it's partly a matter of taste. I'd say that MJ has the edge over Condorcet, but you might disagree. Of course, it would be possible to do Condorcet with a rated ballot, but since I don't know anyone who seriously advocates that, I'm neglecting that possibility.</div>
</blockquote><div><br></div></div>Condorcet can use THE SAME values as rating - the ratings show what is needed to identify A<B, A=B, and A>B.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Right, that's what I was trying to say. But I said that I think most people don't actually suggest pressing for doing it that way in real life. </div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br><blockquote type="cite"> <div>
<br></div><div>For results, I think that MJ and Condorcet both do more than well enough. Is it better to have the candidate who makes some majority happiest, as in MJ, or the one who has majorities over all the others, as in Condorcet? On principle, it's hard to say. In the end, I definitely sympathize with Warren that BR is the best measure of results (while disagreeing that results should be the end-all criterion). I haven't seen BR results for MJ, but based on its similarity to Range and MCA, I'd suspect MJ clearly beats Condorcet by this measure.</div>
<div><br></div><div>If you want to read more about MJ, the place to start are the papers on <a href="http://sites.google.com/site/ridalaraki/majority-judgment" target="_blank">Laraki's home page</a>. These are pro-MJ papers, but honestly, I've found that I got more understanding even of MJ's flaws from reading these critically, than I did from reading the couple of shoddy anti-MJ papers that you'll find in a Google scholar search.</div>
<div><br></div><div>....</div><div><br></div><div>As to SODA, the case is also clear. Less need for strategic thinking than Condorcet? Check. Simpler ballots? In spades. Good results? If voting blocs tend to be well-defined so that voters agree with their favorite candidates — not too excessive an assumption in an ideological, partisan election — then the CW will win in SODA more often than in Condorcet! That is to say, honesty will be the strategic equilibrium in SODA, and lead to a CW win; but in Condorcet, strategy could confound this. In practice, I think that the only case where the CW will not win SODA is when they're an relatively-unknown centrist. Such a person can become the CW precisely because voters do not know their flaws; but in SODA, the other candidates will evaluate that person much more carefully before they transfer a winning pile of votes to an unknown.</div>
<div><br></div><div>....</div><div><br></div><div>I've been actively interested in voting systems for going on two decades now, and sometimes it's frustrating. We continue to argue amongst ourselves between system A and system B, we continue to invent new system Z, while the rest of the world basically ignores us. </div>
<div><br></div><div>In that time, it seems as if I've favored everything under the sun. If I remember correctly, I've gone from Borda, to IRV, to Condorcet, to Range, to Approval, to Asset, to Bucklin, to Bucklin-which-I-called-MCA, to MJ, back to Approval, to SODA. So I think I can pretty fairly say that I'm not fixated on any one system. I also think that I understand the arguments in favor of different systems.</div>
<div><br></div><div>And I honestly have more hope on this issue right now than I have for some time. SODA could be the winning combo. Yes, perhaps I'm biased, because I helped invent it. But if you look at that list of what I've supported, you won't see any other systems where I'd done more than minor tweaks around the edges. And that's not for lack of opportunity; I've invented many systems of my own. It's because I always wanted to back a system which had other supporters, because we're not going to accomplish anything each working alone.</div>
<div><br></div><div>What's so great about SODA? I think it would entirely liberate voters from having to think about strategy. I know that it is the simplest possible task for the voter. And I expect that it would give great results. These are R B-J's three criteria, as I understand them, and I agree with them. I know that other people here might put them in a different order; for instance, the Range advocates would probably put results (that is, BR) first.</div>
<div><br></div><div>SODA has problems, too. It's an obscure system invented yesterday. And it doesn't even really lend itself to publishable results; it's hard to prove anything about it or even do a monte-carlo simulation without making questionable assumptions about how much or how little voting blocs agree with their favored candidate. Finally, it cannot work unless the candidates are human beings; it can't evaluate options without attaching them to spokespeople. But those problems are can be addressed, one way or another, with enough time and effort. </div>
<div><br></div><div>I'd still enthusiastically vote for almost any reform to Plurality - certainly any of the systems except Borda that I listed as having supported. But I have hope that EM researchers and advocates can start coming together as we never have before. I'm not saying that everyone will agree with me. I wouldn't even want for debate to stop. But I think that now is the time to start laying the first foundations of a new unity, and if you ask me right now, SODA has the strength to be the cornerstone.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I hope this does not sound too arrogant. Certainly, I am humbled by the many tasks before us. And no matter how rousingly optimistic my rhetoric, experience reminds me that getting even two of us to agree on anything is always harder than you think.</div>
<div><br></div><div>But still; I remain:</div><div><br></div><div>Hopefully y'rs,</div><div>Jameson Quinn</div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">2011/8/4 robert bristow-johnson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com" target="_blank">rbj@audioimagination.com</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><br> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> On Aug 4, 2011, at 3:20 AM, bob wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> <br> --- In <a href="mailto:RangeVoting@yahoogroups.com" target="_blank">RangeVoting@yahoogroups.com</a>, "thenewthirdparty" <thenewthirdparty@...> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> <br> Guys and Gals,<br> I now see Range Voting as a very important component to getting third parties elected. But I don't see how the Range Voting group will ever change the minds of the public in order for it to be a reality.<br>
</blockquote></blockquote></blockquote> <br></div> and they haven't changed my mind about it, even though i'm not opposed to election policy reform nor of moving past FPP. i fully recognize why the simple vote-for-one ballot (either FPP or delayed-top-two-runoff) disadvantages third-party and independent candidates.<br>
<br> this was a point i brought up during in Burlington IRV debate: one of the vocal opponents to IRV was, 3 years previously, a minor candidate for mayor in Burlington Vermont. i would almost say a non-serious candidate, but he got on the ballot (his name is Loyal Ploof). now he lost to the Prog candidate who was elected in 2006 and he was a sorta anti-establishment rabble rouser (if he could get a rabble).<br>
<br> now (i told them this), suppose i'm standing in the rabble and Loyal says something that we all sorta know but the contending candidates aren't gonna bring up and i hear it and i say "yeah, right! Loyal's right!" maybe even he's a largely single-issue candidate, maybe not. but i want to send a message to city hall by voting for Loyal but the election between the real contenders might be close and my two-party contingency candidate may need my vote. so Loyal doesn't get it, because even if i agree with him and *want* to vote for him, i dare not.<br>
<br> it's the typical Spoiler problem, that discourages voting for third-party or independent candidates. if they can never sufficient vote (because the race between credible candidates may be close) third parties cannot get off the ground and become contenders. but i was surprized that this guy who would directly benefit from a ranked ballot would be opposed to it. (he didn't like the Prog mayor and essentially jumped in the boat with the other Prog-haters that believed, falsely, that IRV specifically favored the Progs in Burlington.)<br>
<br> that said, and to repeat that i also understand IRV to have *failed* in Burlington in 2009, i am not at all impressed with Range or Score voting for governmental elections (for certain Olympic sports, sure, but not for governmental elections). one of the complaints we have against both FPP and IRV (as we found out in Burlington in 2009) is placing obvious burdens of tactical voting on the electorate. we don't *like* having to forsake our favorite candidate in order to accomplish some other political imperative. FPP discourages the Nader voters from voting for their favorite candidate in 2000 by punishing them when it became clear that their vote cause Bush to be elected. and IRV discourages the GOP Prog-haters in Burlington from voting for their favorite candidate in 2009 when they discover that marking their favorite as #1 on the ballot actually caused the Prog to win.<br>
<br> now, it's not the ranked ballot that failed these voters, it was the Hare-STV method of tabulating the vote. Condorcet would have taken the same ballot data and elected the candidate that was preferred by the electorate over any other specific candidate. The GOP who lost the most in the election would neither have gotten punished for their sincere 1st-choice vote (if IRV had survived, in 2012 these guys would be saying to themselves in the polls: "I gotta choose between Liberal and More-Liberal, because if I vote for the guy I really like, More-Liberal gets elected"), they would have been more satisfied with the Condorcet winner than with the IRV winner, who was their least favorite. And the Progs would have been more satisfied with the Condorcet winner than with the apparent FPP winner (the GOP), but they would be unhappy with the result due to rivalry the Progs and Dems have for the common liberal voter in this town.<br>
<br> Ranked-choice voting requires less strategizing by the voter than Range because it requires less information. with a ranked ballot, all the voter needs to decide is who, in every contingency that matters to the voter, who he or she would vote for. they don't need to decide how much *more* they like Mother Teresa over Ghandi. If they really want to bury a third candidate, Stalin, they have to sacrifice their preference between the two virtuous and the election might be decided between them. Or maybe the election will turn out to be a battle between Stalin and Satan and they might rather live under Stalin than Satan, so they want to bump him up a little (leave Satan with a score of 0). but what if Satan wins because not enough voters scored Stalin up enough? or what if either Teresa or Ghandi lose to Stalin because too many voters scored Stalin too high (for fear of electing Satan)?<br>
<br> what to do? what to do?<br> <br> but a ranked ballot is easy:<br> <br> Teresa > Ghandi > Stalin > Satan<br> <br> or, if you're more Hindu than Christian:<br> <br> Ghandi > Teresa > Stalin > Satan<br>
<br> no tactical thinking necessary for the ranked ballot when it decided by Condorcet and a Condorcet winner exists. and, if a CW exists, the result is perfectly consistent, in every contingency, with the simple-majority, two candidate, one-person-one-vote election that everyone is familiar with.<div>
<br> <br> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Does someone have thoughts on how to get your Range Voting plan voted into action? I would like to hear how Range Voting moves beyond more than just a good idea.<br> </blockquote></blockquote></blockquote> <br></div>
how does it move beyond "good idea" when it hasn't advanced to that square? (sorry Warren, i *really* have a lot of respect for you and your scholarship and your Burlington IRV page at your website, but you're still not convincing regarding Range. a little more convincing regarding Approval, but i would still not support that for political office, maybe the judiciary or some boards, but not executive nor legislative.)<br>
<br> listen, everybody agrees with how a simple 2-candidate election should be decided: person with the most votes wins and every voters vote is of equal value. "simple majority" and "one-person-one-vote".<br>
<br> wouldn't it make a lot more sense, since IRV is discredited, and FPP is clearly flawed, to put your energy into educating people about what goes wrong and *has* gone wrong in those elections and present an alternative with ballot no more complicated than with IRV and truer to the hypothetical 2-person race, whether the spoiler runs or not?<div>
<br> <br> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> I think we need to start a PAC or even maybe a party that has the sole objective of getting rid of plurality voting.<br>
</blockquote></blockquote> <br></div> doesn't one exist? why not team up with FairVote?<div><br> <br> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
We need to be able to communicate that competitive elections in which there is no vote splitting is the most important thing we can do to hold politicians accountable.<br> </blockquote></blockquote> <br></div> sure, and how does Condorcet cause vote splitting? you don't need Range to address the problem of splitting the majority vote.<div>
<br> <br> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> We also need to be willing to vote for candidates who support getting rid of plurality regardless of what other positions that candidate holds.<br>
</blockquote></blockquote></div> oooh, i dunno if i can handle that. weirder things have happened than that of Michelle Bachmann supporting ranked-choice voting. i wouldn't vote for her even if she *loved* Condorcet.<div>
<br> <br> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> We need to communicate that once we get over this hump, we will no longer have to worry about having to vote for the lesser of two evils ever again.<br>
<br> Another thing we can do is email and tweet news hosts like Rachael Maddow and ask them to do a segment on different voting systems. If we organize to tweet pundits at the same time, maybe they'll get the message.<br>
</blockquote></blockquote> <br></div> dunno who Rachel Maddow is. guess i better google her. how about Chris Matthews?<div><br> <br> <br> On 8/4/11 9:16 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote:<br> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Here I talk of moving up from FPP to Range or Condorcet. I do not get into other single-winner elections or into multi-winner elections - while such deserve considering, they distract from my primary goal, which is to promote moving upward without getting buried in details.<br>
<br> Voters should see advantages in moving up to a better method.<br> <br> To vote for one, as in FPP:<br> . In Range, assign your choice a maximum rating.<br> . In Condorcet, simply rank your choice.<br> <br> </blockquote>
</div> which is simpler?<div><br> <br> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> Voting for two is using more power than FPP offers. Often there is a major pair of candidates for which you prefer one, and one other that you also want to vote for: For your second choice you could give the same rank or rating, or lower:<br>
. In Range you assign first choice maximum rating. Unrated share minimum. The farther you rate second below max, the stronger your vote for max over second. BUT, the nearer you rate second to unrated, the weaker you rate second over unrated.<br>
. In Condorcet, rank your first choice higher than your second.<br> <br> </blockquote></div> ditto.<div><br> <br> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Voting for more is doable:<br> . In Range your difference in rating between any two is how much you prefer the higher over the lower, and the sum of these differences decides which wins their race.<br> . In Condorcet they count how many rank A>B vs how many rank B>A.<br>
</blockquote></div> which meaning complies more with equal weighting of each voter's vote (what we normally mean by "one-person-one-vote")?<div><br> <br> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Politicians may hesitate in moving up to more powerful methods. Range or Condorcet can cost more, but getting a truer reading as to voter choices can be worth the pain.<br> </blockquote> <br></div> i'm sorry, guys. i'm really sorry, Warren, but between Condorcet and Range, it just ain't close.<br>
<br> -- <br> <br> r b-j <a href="mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com" target="_blank">rbj@audioimagination.com</a><br> <br> "Imagination is more important than knowledge."</blockquote></div></div>
</blockquote>
</div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br>