<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>
<pre><i><br></i><i><br></i><br>dlw: I agree with JQ's approach of realism that presumes that LNH or the<br>Weak Cournot Winner problem matters because it is important to take into<br>account the fears of incumbents when pushing electoral reform.<br><br>[endquote]<br><br>...so Dave is pushing for something that current incumbants will like because it<br>will keep on electing the same two odious parties, as lesser-evils, at Myerson-Weber equilibrium.<br><br>Dave says:<br><br>As for your dumb and dumber characterization, this gets at my arg that<br>lowering the Pirv<br><br>After Burlington, Pirv(federal) = 0.<br><br><br>...doesn't raise the Poth <br><br>[endquote]<br><br>If IRV continues to embarrass electoral reform, then P(anything) will approach zero.<br>That's why serious advocates of electoral reform must distance themselves from IRV,<br>FairVote, and Richie.<br><br>Dave says:<br><br>...because there is no unity over<br>which election rule would take the place of IRV3 as the de facto leader by<br>virtue of its P if not it's X.<br><br>[endquote]<br><br>Can we guess that Dave is using "X" to stand for "merit"? <br><br>Most people wouldn't propose something more complicated than Approval unless it's<br>better than Approval.<br><br>IRV is the "de facto leader", in terms of local enactments, due to heavy promotion<br>by means of someone's personal wealth. It's rather like buying your son's way into<br>a prestigious university, and then buying him a degree there.<br><br>There's no unity about which method we like best, but there is a strong consensus<br>that Approval is pretty good, and it's the obvious, natural proposal due to its<br>simplicity and its minimal change from Plurality.<br><br>Then we can talk about equally simple and obvious ways to get rid of the co-operation/<br>defection problem, and maybe add an additional level of majority rule protection. In other<br>words, such proposals as the conditional methods or SODA, all of which are based on, and<br>follow directly from, Approval.<br><br><br>><i><br></i>><i> From: MIKE OSSIPOFF <<a href="http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com">nkklrp at hotmail.com</a>><br></i>><i> To: <<a href="http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com">election-methods at electorama.com</a>><br></i>><i> Cc:<br></i>><i> Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 03:12:09 +0000<br></i>><i> Subject: [EM] Dave, Jameson: IRV<br></i>><i> Dave:<br></i>><i><br></i>><i> *Any proposal **for federal elections would be thoroughly scrutinized and<br></i>><i> examined. Do you **think that Burlington's demonstration of IRV's spoiler<br></i>><i> ** problem won't be found by those studying IRV's merit? *<br></i>><i><br></i>><i> * * dlw: You gotta find new material.<br></i>><i><br></i>><i> [endquote]<br></i>><i><br></i>><i> MO:Most likely dlw doesn't know what he means by that either. Comedians<br></i>><i> and other<br></i>><i> showmen must use original material.<br></i>><i><br></i><br>dlw: My arg that there's a healthy party-dynamism triggered by the<br>potential of IRV variants to spoil in a three-way competitive election is<br>original material.<br><br>Yes, that is original material. And, as new comedic material should be, it<br>is hilarious.<br><br>Healthy party-dynamism triggered by the spoiler problem? :-) What is triggered<br>by the spoiler problem is the stagnation of two un-favorite parties continuing<br>to win because the spoiler problem and the grossest FBC-failure make people feel<br>that they need to vote for their more preferred of "the two choices".<br><br>Dave says:<br><br>You're the one repeating the mantra that Burlington<br>sinks IRV once and for all....<br><br>[endquote]<br><br>For one thing, it isn't a mantra. Look the word up in your dictionary. If<br>you don't have a dictionary, you might consider visiting a library.<br><br>Many things are said by more than one person. Many parents tell their children<br>not to play with matches or run into the street in front of cars. They say it<br>even though others have already said it. <br><br>If you insist on continuing to repeat<br>FairVote's lies and confusions, then don't be surprised if someone repeats the<br>answers to your statements.<br><br>IRV's problems don't go away just because they've already been mentioned. IRV's<br>chances for federal enactment don't improve just because they've already been<br>discussed. So yes, it's been said before, but it remains true.<br><br>But I'll make a deal: I'll stop talking about IRV's merits and chances if you do.<br>You haven't repeated anything here, have you? :-)<br><br><br><br><br>><i> MO:Regrettably, IRV's spoiler problem is still there,<br></i>><i> just like it was during the previoius many years when we tried to warn<br></i>><i> about it.<br></i>><i> It's old material. But it's currently a problem, as Burlington showed. So<br></i>><i> maybe the new material<br></i>><i> that's needed is a new voting system, instead of the old-material failure<br></i>><i> known as IRV.<br></i>><i><br></i><br>dlw: Like I said... or as George Gershwin wrote, "It ain't necessarily<br>so..."<br><br>[endquote]<br><br>You could say that before the predicted failure was demonstrated in an actual<br>election. Now, the failure is demonstrated. Have you heard the story of the ostrich?<br><br>><i><br></i>><i> Dave says:<br></i>><i><br></i>><i> It's called the problem of micronumerosity.<br></i>><i><br></i>><i> MO:Nonsense. That isn't a descriptive name. No doubt anything is called by<br></i>><i> different names by<br></i>><i> different people. The problem referred to is best known, well known, as<br></i>><i> the spoiler problem, which is also an incomparably better descriptive (if<br></i>><i> less pretentious) term. Maybe IRV's spoiler problem is called "the problem<br></i>><i> of micronumerosity" by the same people (or person?) who use your other<br></i>><i> pretentiously pseudoscientific language.<br></i>><i><br></i><br>dlw: Micronumerosity is not nonsense.<br><br>[endquote]<br><br>Oh, ok, Dave says so himself :-)<br><br>Dave says:<br><br>it may be better known as the "Law<br>of Small Numbers<br><br>[endquote]<br><br>Previously you implied that it referred to the spoiler problem. Now you're saying that<br>it means "small sample". <br><br>In many statistical discussions, we hear the term "small sample". Statistics books speak<br>of small samples, by which it's difficult to draw statistically-significant conclusions.<br><br>I haven't run across "micronumerosity" in a statistic book or statistical discussion.<br><br>Dave says:<br><br><<a href="https://www.google.com/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=%22the+law+of+small+numbers%22">https://www.google.com/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=%22the+law+of+small+numbers%22</a>>",<br>which says people come to decisions based on too small of a sample. The<br>"negative" effects of the possibility of a non-CW winner in an IRV-ish<br>election can and should be observed on the basis of many elections,not<br>two...<br><br>[endquote]<br><br>1. Then let's record and publish the information that would reveal outcomes<br>that, if known, would make someone regret that they voted their favorite in 1st<br>place. Regrettably, such information isn't often revealed after IRV elections. IRVists<br>have said that, by concealing that information, they can avoid the regret. That tells<br>you something about the honesty of IRVists.<br><br>2. The blatantly, grossly obvious spoiler problem of IRV, has been predicted and warned-or<br>for a long time. When the predicted problem happens soon after IRV enactment, yes that does<br>have significant statistical meaning. <br><br>I say: People typically carry a house-key. You say "No they don't. Let's test your <br>theory." So we stop someone, make him empty his pockets, and we find a house-key. <br><br>That the predicted result is found so soon strongly suggests that it isn't rare for<br>someone to carry a house-key, or for IRV to fail as predicted.<br><br>Must we mug more people to check their pockets for house-keys, or cause more bungled<br>elections?<br><br>The sooner it happens, after the experiment begins, the more significant that result is.<br><br><br>><i> The use of "micronumerosity" reveals an ignorance of word-origin: The<br></i>><i> first part of it is Greek, and the last part of it is Latin.<br></i>><i><br></i><br>Dave says:<br><br>Like there was never any historic influence between the Greeks and Rome?<br> They both were affected by the cultural imports of<br>Pythagoras<<a href="https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=riedweg+pythagoras#pq=riedweg+pythagoras&hl=en&tok=N4J8peRbtZMrgOHX890Tfg&cp=47&gs_id=l&xhr=t&q=pythagoras+his+life+teaching+and+influence+by+christoph+riedweg&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=%22Pythagoras:+his+life,+teaching,+and+influence%22&aq=0v&aqi=g-v4&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.,cf.osb&fp=1a6a6fc03027a1ea&biw=1490&bih=905">https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=riedweg+pythagoras#pq=riedweg+pythagoras&hl=en&tok=N4J8peRbtZMrgOHX890Tfg&cp=47&gs_id=l&xhr=t&q=pythagoras+his+life+teaching+and+influence+by+christoph+riedweg&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=%22Pythagoras:+his+life,+teaching,+and+influence%22&aq=0v&aqi=g-v4&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.,cf.osb&fp=1a6a6fc03027a1ea&biw=1490&bih=905</a>><br>from<br>his travels abroad.<br><br>The U.S., Europe, and Japan have exchanged many ideas, and have been much influenced<br>by eachother. So then, why don't we tack together a Japanese word and an English word, <br>to make a compound that means "small-number"?<br><br>Even in dictionaries, there are probably some compounds consisting of words of different origin.<br>Dictionaries don't rule on validity. They report usage. When a dictionary reports that the<br>use of "interdict" to mean "physically intercept" (instead of merely "verbally forbid") has become<br>popular, that doesn't make it valid, and doesn't make it any less ridiculous.<br><br>Do you have a problem with "small sample"? What's the matter? Isn't it pseudoscientific enough or<br>pretentious enough?<br><br>Let's look at some possibilities. Aside from the usual, universally-found, "small sample",<br>someone could coin "Few-ness". But, if ordinary English is to ordinary for you, we already have, in<br>English, a Latin-derived word for "Too-few-ness": "Paucity".<br><br>But maybe, to sound more scientific, you want something longer, more unusual, and Latin. No problem.<br>We have a word "Supernumary". Its opposite would be "Subnumary". To make a state-of-affairs noun<br>from it, one could say, consistent with practice with other words, "Subnumarity".<br><br>It has the advantage of all being derived from one language, and the advantage of being closely<br>related to a word actually used in English. ...if you think that the earlier-mentioned<br>words and phrases won't do, for some reason.<br><br>Though "Supernumary" is a word, and I've run across it, my dictionaries don't have it, and so I can't<br>guarantee that I've spelled it correctly.<br><br><br><br><br>Dave says:<br><br>And the word is not my own...<br><br>[endquote]<br><br>So, the fact that you got it from someone else makes it valid, legitimate,<br>or means that it makes some sense?<br><br><br>><i><br></i>><i> Dave says:<br></i>><i><br></i>><i> Burlington VT is not the smoking gun. It's evidence that if we get<br></i>><i> perfectionistic<br></i>><i><br></i><br><br><br>><i> MO: Only an IRV-promoter thinks that it's "perfectionistic" to reject one<br></i>><i> of the two or three worst<br></i>><i> methods, a method whose improvement over Plurality debatable, and<br></i>><i> miniscule at best.<br></i>><i><br></i><br>dlw: if FPP had been used in 2009 then clearly in Burlington there'd have<br>been a much worse outcome from the point of view of the majority of<br>voters... unless of course you're presuming strategic voting on behalf of<br>dissenters from the two existing major parties to elect the CW. If that<br>were so then yes we'd get the CW elected, but there'd be no real dynamics<br>towards moving the center from its de facto position to its true position.<br><br>[endquote]<br><br>Our election results don't tell where the center (population median" is. There's<br>no reason to believe that it's between the Democrat and the Republican.<br><br>IRV, like Plurality, will (as I said) continue electing the same two unliked parties<br>at Myerson-Weber equilibrium forever. No, IRV will not move toward the population<br>median. Approval will, however. I refer you to Myerson & Weber. You can start with<br>the article for which you posted the title, journal, date, and issue.<br><br>Dave says:<br><br>That is hardly miniscule!!!<br><br>[endquote]<br><br>I agree that electing the same two unliked parties forever isn' miniscule.<br><br>Dave says:<br><br>Get your head out of your pseudo-experimental<br>analytics for a little while... <br><br>[endquote]<br><br>To use Dave's word, it is "analytically" blatantly and grossly obvious that<br>IRV will do what it did in Burlington. But you can no longer say that the problem<br>is only theoretical or analytical, can you.<br><br>Dave says:<br><br>It is complete bs to say that IRV is worse<br>than picking candidates at random.<br><br>[endquote]<br><br>No, that wasn't what I said:<br><br>I said that IRV is worse than picking a voting system at random.<br><br><br>><i><br></i>><i> MO:The elegantly simple Approval is incomparably better than IRV, as<br></i>><i> judged by the properties<br></i>><i> valued by most at EM, and most who look at voting systems. Preferring the<br></i>><i> much simpler Approval, to IRV, isn't perfectionism.<br></i>><i><br></i><br>dlw: But is EM the true standard for real life or is it biased by virtue of<br>how its members are oft removed from the world of real life activism?<br><br>[endquote]<br><br>IRV has been tried in real life. Need I remind you of its results?<br><br>IRVists have long questioned the validity of the "theoretical" or "analytical"<br>predictions from those who actually seriously compare voting systems (as opposed to<br>just promoting one). Real world experience confirms those "theoretical" predictions.<br><br><br><br><br>><i><br></i>><i> Dave says:<br></i>><i><br></i>><i> ...so the anti-reform types can play divide and conquer agianst us<br></i>><i><br></i>><i> Conspiracy theory paranoia. Anti-reform types didn't "divide" the rest of<br></i>><i> us from IRV. IRV's ridiculous inadequacy accomplished that.<br></i>><i><br></i><br>dlw: What's ridiculous is your insistence that IRV is ridiculously<br>inadequate in "real life", when the relatively rare occurence of<br>competitive three way elections so clearly proves that to be false...<br><br>You bring 6 dogs into a room intended for cats. No cats enter the room.<br>I come in and say, "You know, those dogs will keep cats away." You say,<br>"What cats? Dogs don't do any harm when there aren't any cats."<br><br>Dave says:<br><br>I don't need a conspiracy to argue that well-meaning folks who rank other<br>election rules above IRV variants are strategically coopting args developed<br>by the defenders of the status quo to build up my case of us joining ranks<br>to at least strategically push for (or not to attack) IRV in the immediate<br>future so as to increase the chances of further electoral reforms in the<br>US.<br><br>[endquote]<br><br>As I said, IRV is an embarrassment to electoral reform. Serious electoral reform<br>advocates must publicly distance themselves from it. <br><br>FairVote never was democratic. Richie didn't ask dues-paying members of his organization which<br>voting system the organization should promote, or listen to their dissenting opinions.<br><br>So it's rather amusing now, to hear calls for co-operation. <br><br>FairVote says, "Everyone get in line behind me."<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><i><br></i><i><br></i><br>dlw:Yes, it is hard to get electoral reform in the US. This makes<br>perfectionism counter-productive <br><br>[endquote]<br><br>Can it be that Dave doesn't know what a prize understatement it is to<br>say that IRV isn't perfect? Wanting the improvements that the simple<br>Approval brings, and that IRV fails to bring, isn't perfectionism.<br><br><br><br><br>><i><br></i>><i><br></i>><i> Dave says:<br></i>><i><br></i>><i> Like I wrote, the only way a non-CW can win w.,<br></i>><i><br></i>><i> [endquote]<br></i>><i><br></i>><i> Wrong. Ever heard of the squeeze-effect? All it takes is for favoriteness<br></i>><i> to taper gradually<br></i>><i> away from a middle CW, and s/hell lose to flanking candidates receiving<br></i>><i> transfers cascading<br></i>><i> in from the sides.<br></i>><i><br></i><br>dlw: In that case, the two major parties are not centered around the<br>center, are they? So I am not wrong...<br><br>[endquote]<br><br>Yes, they are. A middle CW with a Plurality win will lose in IRV under the common<br>conditions that I described. And the next biggest candidate, in that scenario, is<br>right next to him in political-position-space.<br><br><br><br><br>><i><br></i>><i> MO:Quite aside from that, with 3 candidates, there is one chance 3 that<br></i>><i> the middle<br></i>><i> candidate will be the smallest of the 3. And for hir to be CW requires<br></i>><i> only that<br></i>><i> neither of the extreme two has a majority.<br></i>><i><br></i><br>dlw: And, the conjunction of those two requirements make the non-election<br>of a CW, given the unlikely situation of a 3-way competitive election, not<br>terribly likely.... So |Xirv-Xoth| is still small relative to Pirv-Poth.<br><br>[endquote]<br><br>So Dave thinks it would be rare for the 1/3 probably that middle is smallest<br>to coincide with neither extreme candidate having a majority :-)<br><br><br><br>><i><br></i>><i> MO: Dave is saying that IRV's spoiler problem can be avoided if the two<br></i>><i> biggest candidates<br></i>><i> insincerely change their positions to the median, CW, position. But doing<br></i>><i> so would violate their promises to the people and corporations that<br></i>><i> gave them their money. They can't just<br></i>><i> change their positions that much.<br></i>><i><br></i><br>dlw: All's fair in Love and Politics. If we don't adapt, we die.<br><br><br>[endquote]<br><br>It's an individual voting choice. You can vote for dishonest candidates if you want to.<br>You think that they're a necessary fact of life, so we should all vote for the dishonest<br>candidate who isn't quite as bad as the others. You're the result of Plurality and its<br>big FBC-failure and consequent spoiler problem. And you want another method, IRV,<br>that has the same properties.<br><br>With better methods, people can freely, without fear, vote for their favorites. With<br>Approval, for the first time, everyone could vote for their favorite. ...would have no reason<br>not to.<br><br>Things needn't be the way they now are, Dave.<br><br>Mike Ossipoff<br><br><br><i><br></i></pre> </div></body>
</html>