<div class="gmail_quote"><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">
<br>dlw: The two major-party equilibrium would be centered around the<br>
de facto center.<br>
<br>
<br>KM: But positioning yourself around the de facto center is dangerous<br>
in IRV. You might get center-squeezed unless either you or your<br>
voters start using strategic lesser-evil logic - the same sort of<br>
logic that IRV was supposed to free you from by "being impervious<br>
to spoilers".<br>
<br>
dlw: the cost of campaigning in "less local" elections is high enuf that it's hard for a major party to get center-squeezed. And if such did happen, they could reposition to prevent it.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>RBJthe counterexample, again, is Burlington Vermont. Dems haven't sat in the mayor's chair for decades.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>dlw: Not sure this is a relevant counter example. With IRV, the two major parties would become the Progs and the Dems who would be centered around the de facto center of Burlington. </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>
-- <br>---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: matt welland <<a href="mailto:matt@kiatoa.com">matt@kiatoa.com</a>><br>RBF: the counterexample, again, is Burlington Vermont. Dems haven't sat in<br>
> the mayor's chair for decades.<br>
<br>MW: Is this due to a split of the liberal vote by progressives or other<br>
liberal blocs? Or is it due to a truly Republican leaning demographic?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>dlw: More to the point, this is not an arg against IRV since it was only tried for one election in Burlington. </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>MW:Also, do folks generally see approval as better than or worse than IRV?<br>
<br>
To me Approval seems to solve the spoiler problem without introducing<br>
any unstable weirdness and it is much simpler and cheaper to do than<br>
IRV.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>dlw: I would not describe IRV as introducing unstable weirdness. It maintains a two-party dominated system and facilitates that those two major parties tend to position themselves around the de facto (shifting) center. </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
What do you think of the IRV3/AV3 system that treats the up to 3 ranked votes as approval votes to get 3 finalists with IRV used in the final stage? <br>
<br>
<br><br><br>---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: robert bristow-johnson <<a href="mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com">rbj@audioimagination.com</a>><br>To: <a href="mailto:election-methods@lists.electorama.com">election-methods@lists.electorama.com</a><br>
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2011 22:31:03 -0500<br>Subject: Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.<br>On 11/26/11 6:58 PM, matt welland wrote:<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"><br>
</blockquote>MW:Is this due to a split of the liberal vote by progressives or other<br>
liberal blocs? Or is it due to a truly Republican leaning demographic?<br>
</blockquote>RBS:Burlington is, for the U.S., a very very liberal town with a well-educated and activist populace. it's the origin of Ben & Jerry's and now these two guys are starting a movement ( <a href="http://movetoamend.org/" target="_blank">http://movetoamend.org/</a> ) to get a constitutional amendment to reverse the obscene Citizens United ruling of the Supreme Court.<br>
<br>
the far north end of Burlington (called the "New North End", also where i live) is a little more suburban in appearance and here is where the GOP hangs in this town.<br>
<br>
the mayors have been Progs with an occasional GOP. it is precisely the "center squeeze" syndrome and IRV didn't solve that problem. and without getting Condorcet adopted, i am not sure how it will be reversed.<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>dlw: If you had given IRV another election, it would have likely solved the problem. You cannot seriously think that one Burlington has driven a stake in the heart of IRV for once and forever. </div>
<div><br></div><div> </div><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"><br></blockquote>RBS:but the only voting methods folks generally see here are FPTP, FPTP with a delayed runoff, and IRV. and, thanks to FairVote, nearly everyone are ignorant of other methods to tabulate the ranked ballot than the STV method in IRV.<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>dlw: And it was hard work to get people to get IRV..., just think how hard it would be to teach them about 4 very heterogeneous election rules.</div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>
<br><br>---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: Jameson Quinn <<a href="mailto:jameson.quinn@gmail.com">jameson.quinn@gmail.com</a>><br>To: David L Wetzell <<a href="mailto:wetzelld@gmail.com">wetzelld@gmail.com</a>><br>
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2011 22:32:53 -0600<br>Subject: Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.<br><div class="gmail_quote"><div>Here's I think the crux of your mistake: </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail_quote"><div></div><div>
We can't say it's just a matter of opinion, cuz it's probably not such, </div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I don't want to get too far into philosophical issues here, but I think that in one sense we can basically take it for granted that it's not such: that, in the proverbial phrase, God does, in fact, know whether p(irv_succeeds_broadly | voting_reform_succeeds_broadly ) is close to 1, close to 0.5, or close to 0. (I say that as shorthand; I'm actually quite convinced God doesn't exist, I'm just saying I believe in objective truth.)</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>dlw: Args about God are for another list-serve... I'd say I'd bet my life that P(irv_succeeds_broadly_among_single-winner_elections | maintain existing voting reform strategy(+ IRV3/AV3 tweak)) >> P(another_election_rule_replaces_irv_and succeeds_broadly_et al. | existing voting reform strategy is subverted on the basis of electoral analytical args + Burlington, VT case-study)</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br></div><div> But the fact that the truth is out there, does not imply that it is either desirable or possible for people to stop arguing about it before we have much clearer evidence of what it is.</div></div></blockquote>
<div><br></div><div>dlw: The existence of the truth + exigencies of the US system can make it pragmatically wise to subdue some differences for a spell. </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="gmail_quote"><div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>and so what makes sense to me is to rally around IRV3/AV3</div></div></blockquote><div>
<br>
</div><div>Exactly. What makes sense to YOU. You have chosen to believe in a certain scenario about the future. But repeating and repeating your plausible, but non-overwhelming, reasons for making that choice, simply is not going to lead to everyone lining up behind you.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>dlw: We can't do over-whelming with so little real world experimentation in the use of single-winner election rules for political elections. We gotta raise our alpha level. Apart from my args is the reality that there is institutional support for pushing the use of IRV+PR and its made significant inroads among progressive activists. This is a fact. It is what under girds my choice to believe in a certain scenario about the future. </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br></div><div>JQ: We already have a nice dinner riding on each of us believing "I'm right and you're reasonable enough to see that eventually". But I think I could make you some further bets where your overconfident belief would make you a sucker.</div>
<div>1. I'd bet you at 5:1 odds that you won't convince this list to do what you say. You can propose your own terms, but I'm thinking of something like the following: 2 years from today, take "people on this list" to mean "email addresses, weighted by max(0, ln(number of posts to this list))", that there will be more people on this list who support other methods over IRV than vice versa, by objective metrics. So I'd put up $500 against your $100.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>dlw: I'd be willing to bet that if we ran a f-p-t-p election that actually had significant consequences in terms of list-member money going to support electoral reform activism then a plurality of list-members, weighted by their participation, would vote strategically in favor of IRV3/AV3 over any of the 4 other contenders. This will be because the 4 others will likely remain at a serious marketing disadvantage with US voters. Now, this might be because of strategic voting, but such would be wise when using FPTP. I don't know what would happen if we used approval voting, because I know the antipathy twds IRV is strong among many here and there's not likely to be much new stuff going on empirically to break that view point. </div>
<div><br></div><div>I don't know what would be the case if we didn't make it have consequences, because that is what happens on list-serves, as opposed to among electoral activists laying their face/careers on the line over a specific electoral reform. Those who face the real world consequences tend to go with IRV or IRV3. This is because it's a decent rule and a path of less resistance, especially relative to pushing a new rule(s) that most people don't understand and that would require much more costly spade work in voter-education. </div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="gmail_quote">
<div>JQ: 2. I'd bet you at even odds that, ten years from today, IF more than 20 different US jurisdictions have separately implemented some single winner reform, that fewer than 10 of those are IRV. (I agree with you that if voting reform continues with limited, scattered success as today, that it will probably be mostly IRV. But I think that the case where it successfully takes off is a different kettle of fish.) I'd put up to $200 on this bet.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>dlw: I'd be all over that if all I cared about was money, but I think it's a sincere and very much mistaken sentiment. </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br></div><div>JQ: I'm serious about both of these offers. If you're serious about what you affirm on this list, you should take me up on them, because you would have to believe that they're safe bets for you. Of course, since I'm talking about real money, though hopefully something either of us could afford, I wouldn't make these bets without further clarifying the rules and finding some way we can make our 2/10 year commitments reasonably trustworthy to each other. </div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>dlw: I believe you're serious. Like I said, I'm not that motivated by money....(especially for a guy with a PhD in Econ.) It's a byproduct of me being an aspie. So I'd feel bad about taking you up on the 2nd one and the first bet is inadequately framed in my view....</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br></div><div>Jameson</div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Election-Methods mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Election-Methods@lists.electorama.com">Election-Methods@lists.electorama.com</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com" target="_blank">http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>