They don't always change their priors <i>much</i>. It depends on the evidence...<div><br></div><div>And I do rationalize. I just don't want to rationalize the fact that the difficulties this list-serve has in agreeing on the best single-winner election rule is consistent with the possibility that there wouldn't be that much in differences if oth replaced irv or there wouldn't be that much a diff relative to if irv+ replaced irv, since competitive 3-way single-winner elections are rare in the US and not stable and Burlington-like anomalies/pathologies aren't so bad in a multi-stage game and angels don't necessarily lose their wings whenever someone is pressured to vote strategically. </div>
<div><br></div><div>And I will concede that among electoral reform analysts there is a strong preference for multi-party systems. However, this may reflect ideological stuff that led them to invest themselves in becoming electoral reform analysts in the first place. If we had a different kind of 2-party system then they'd "rationalize" or realize that the diffs aren't so great.</div>
<div><br></div><div>dlw<br><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Jameson Quinn <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jameson.quinn@gmail.com">jameson.quinn@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Bayesians don't accept or reject their priors; they adjust them in response to any new evidence.<div><br></div><div>Humans, on the other hand, rationalize. I do it to. But in this case, you have to admit that you're quacking an awful lot like that kind of duck.</div>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<div><br></div></font></span><div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">Jameson</font></span><div class="im"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2012/2/6 David L Wetzell <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:wetzelld@gmail.com" target="_blank">wetzelld@gmail.com</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Rationality in the face of the complexity of reality entails having priors and valuing empiricism(based on more than a case-study) over theory. There's not evidence to make me reject my prior that in the short-run in the US that the variance in the quality of alternatives to FPTP(apart from "top 2 primary") is not great enuf to justify trying to change horses going different directions. And, It greatly pales in the face of the evidence that the use of Am forms of PR is crucial to stop the cut-throat competitive struggle between our top two parties to dominate US politics. <span><font color="#888888"><div>
<br></div></font></span><div><span><font color="#888888">dlw</font></span><div><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Jameson Quinn <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jameson.quinn@gmail.com" target="_blank">jameson.quinn@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div>2012/2/6 David L Wetzell <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:wetzelld@gmail.com" target="_blank">wetzelld@gmail.com</a>></span><br></div><div><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail_quote"><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
</blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>Agreed, but no chance this will happen.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>What if electoral analysts put more of their power into showing others why such a change would be for the greater good, rather than dickering over which single-winner election rule is the best???</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>Perhaps you should apply this audacious hope argument to the p_x's.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>Not-so much if I'm right about the variance of the Xs for single-winner political elections...</div>
<div><br></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div>Which would better have helped me guess you would say this: modeling you as a rational truth-seeker, or modeling you as someone rationalizing pre-decided conclusions? </div>
</div><span><font color="#888888"><br>
<div>Jameson</div>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>