Cheers. It's been nice to have you around. I have been hard on you where we disagree; but in general, beyond the details of your theories, I think that your focus on what is actually achievable is a very healthy reminder.<div>
<br></div><div>Jameson<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2012/2/22 David L Wetzell <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:wetzelld@gmail.com">wetzelld@gmail.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I'm going to unsuscribe for a spell at least tomorrow night.<div>It's been fun, for the most part.</div><div><br></div><div>I think my attempt at an intervention in the electoral debate here probably reached the point of diminishing returns a bit back...</div>
<div>peace,</div><div>dlw<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 4:52 PM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:election-methods-request@lists.electorama.com" target="_blank">election-methods-request@lists.electorama.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Send Election-Methods mailing list submissions to<br>
<a href="mailto:election-methods@lists.electorama.com" target="_blank">election-methods@lists.electorama.com</a><br>
<br>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<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>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
<a href="mailto:election-methods-request@lists.electorama.com" target="_blank">election-methods-request@lists.electorama.com</a><br>
<br>
You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
<a href="mailto:election-methods-owner@lists.electorama.com" target="_blank">election-methods-owner@lists.electorama.com</a><br>
<br>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>
than "Re: Contents of Election-Methods digest..."<br>
<br>Today's Topics:<br>
<br>
1. Does Range need an abstention/participation tally? (Jameson Quinn)<br>
2. Post-Autistic Electoral Analysis? (David L Wetzell)<br>
3. Oscar Voting (David L Wetzell)<br>
4. Re: Post-Autistic Electoral Analysis? (Jameson Quinn)<br>
5. Re: Oscar Voting (Jameson Quinn)<br>
6. Re: Post-Autistic Electoral Analysis? (David L Wetzell)<br>
<br><br>---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: Jameson Quinn <<a href="mailto:jameson.quinn@gmail.com" target="_blank">jameson.quinn@gmail.com</a>><br>To: EM <<a href="mailto:election-methods@lists.electorama.com" target="_blank">election-methods@lists.electorama.com</a>>, electionsciencefoundation <<a href="mailto:electionscience@googlegroups.com" target="_blank">electionscience@googlegroups.com</a>><br>
Cc: <br>Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:15:01 -0600<br>Subject: [EM] Does Range need an abstention/participation tally?<br>I'm working on sketching out data structures so that <a href="https://vote.heliosvoting.org/" target="_blank">Helios Voting</a>, an online, open-source, cryptographically-verifiable voting system, can use advanced voting procedures such as Range, Majority Judgment, and SODA. (Condorcet is a significantly harder problem but probably doable, and IRV is essentially impossible).<div>
<br></div><div>My question is: for the Range voting structures, is it acceptable to just keep one tally (total score) for each candidate, or do you also need a tally of number of voters who rated/didn't rate a candidate? The latter would be used for average-based schemes; so this question is equivalent to asking, are such schemes important enough to be worth making the data structures more complex? Since I'm the one signing up for the programming work here, I'd appreciate it if answers that ask me to do more work have a reasoning and a strength (ie, "I'd kinda prefer it" versus "I think it is absolutely necessary").</div>
<div><br></div><div>Jameson</div>
<br><br>---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: David L Wetzell <<a href="mailto:wetzelld@gmail.com" target="_blank">wetzelld@gmail.com</a>><br>To: EM <<a href="mailto:election-methods@lists.electorama.com" target="_blank">election-methods@lists.electorama.com</a>><br>
Cc: <br>Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:35:14 -0600<br>Subject: [EM] Post-Autistic Electoral Analysis?<br>As you may know, at the beginning of this century, French and English economics graduate students challenged the dominance of uber-mathematically analytical approaches to Economics in what became the<a href="http://www.paecon.net/HistoryPAE.htm" target="_blank"> Post-Autistic Economics movement. </a>A lot of their critiques apply similarly to rational choice models in political science and might be worth pondering for electoral analytics. <div>
<br></div><div>I myself consider my diffidence to jockeying for what's the best single-winner alternative to FPTP as blissfully ignoring how joe average voter(or habitual non-voter) is a creature of habit and won't respond to being given umpteen more choices in the way policy-wonkish electoral analysts would.This sort of behavioralist approach to voters is not unlike as shown by neurologists looking into<a href="http://www.thepoliticalbrain.com/videos.php" target="_blank"> the political brain</a>. </div>
<div><br></div><div>But I do believe that many more folks can learn to vote more rationally and that third parties and caucuses within major parties are the right groups for them to learn how to do that, but that's why I'm so enthusiastic about the strategic use of PR in "more local" elections, which ideally would by giving activists more exit threat would lead to the use of more caucuses like what is used by the<a href="http://dfl.org/about/caucuses-conventions" target="_blank"> Democrat-Farm-Labor party in MN.</a></div>
<div><br></div><div>So I'm not saying don't do electoral analytics, but don't lose sight of the ambiguities involved in relating utopic, abstract models back to real life.</div><div><br></div><div>dlw </div>
<br><br>---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: David L Wetzell <<a href="mailto:wetzelld@gmail.com" target="_blank">wetzelld@gmail.com</a>><br>To: EM <<a href="mailto:election-methods@lists.electorama.com" target="_blank">election-methods@lists.electorama.com</a>><br>
Cc: <br>Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:40:40 -0600<br>Subject: [EM] Oscar Voting<br>Steve Pond:
<a href="http://www.thewrap.com/awards/column-post/oscar-voting-now-passions-got-nothing-do-it-35468?page=0,0" target="_blank">http://www.thewrap.com/awards/column-post/oscar-voting-now-passions-got-nothing-do-it-35468?page=0,0</a><div>
<br></div><div>The P of irv is on the rise, in addition to with the endorsement of Barack Obama as highlighted in Rob Richies editorial in the NYTimes, and we're not likely to change that in a way that similarly raises the P of <i>one </i>alternative.</div>
<div>dlw</div>
<br><br>---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: Jameson Quinn <<a href="mailto:jameson.quinn@gmail.com" target="_blank">jameson.quinn@gmail.com</a>><br>To: David L Wetzell <<a href="mailto:wetzelld@gmail.com" target="_blank">wetzelld@gmail.com</a>><br>
Cc: EM <<a href="mailto:election-methods@lists.electorama.com" target="_blank">election-methods@lists.electorama.com</a>><br>Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:42:38 -0600<br>Subject: Re: [EM] Post-Autistic Electoral Analysis?<br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">
2012/2/22 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">
As you may know, at the beginning of this century, French and English economics graduate students challenged the dominance of uber-mathematically analytical approaches to Economics in what became the<a href="http://www.paecon.net/HistoryPAE.htm" target="_blank"> Post-Autistic Economics movement. </a>A lot of their critiques apply similarly to rational choice models in political science and might be worth pondering for electoral analytics. <div>
<br></div><div>I myself consider my diffidence to jockeying for what's the best single-winner alternative to FPTP as blissfully ignoring how joe average voter(or habitual non-voter) is a creature of habit and won't respond to being given umpteen more choices in the way policy-wonkish electoral analysts would.This sort of behavioralist approach to voters is not unlike as shown by neurologists looking into<a href="http://www.thepoliticalbrain.com/videos.php" target="_blank"> the political brain</a>. </div>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I too consider my advocacy of SODA, and to a lesser extent MJ, as being strongly informed by a humanistic/cognitive view. It seems quite possible that one of us is wrong.</div><div><br></div>
<div>Jameson</div><div> </div></div>
<br><br>---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: Jameson Quinn <<a href="mailto:jameson.quinn@gmail.com" target="_blank">jameson.quinn@gmail.com</a>><br>To: David L Wetzell <<a href="mailto:wetzelld@gmail.com" target="_blank">wetzelld@gmail.com</a>><br>
Cc: EM <<a href="mailto:election-methods@lists.electorama.com" target="_blank">election-methods@lists.electorama.com</a>><br>Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:47:42 -0600<br>Subject: Re: [EM] Oscar Voting<br>Um, the McCain/Obama endorsements are very old news – for instance, it's from before either MJ or SODA even existed. (I know in the latter case that's not saying much, nor am I claiming that Obama would be more likely to endorse SODA today, I'm just saying that there are two systems today that I consider reasonably well-explored and better than what existed previously, that didn't exist over in the early 2000s when Obama endorsed IRV.)<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">2012/2/22 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">
Steve Pond:
<a href="http://www.thewrap.com/awards/column-post/oscar-voting-now-passions-got-nothing-do-it-35468?page=0,0" target="_blank">http://www.thewrap.com/awards/column-post/oscar-voting-now-passions-got-nothing-do-it-35468?page=0,0</a><div>
<br></div><div>The P of irv is on the rise, in addition to with the endorsement of Barack Obama as highlighted in Rob Richies editorial in the NYTimes, and we're not likely to change that in a way that similarly raises the P of <i>one </i>alternative.</div>
<span><font color="#888888">
<div>dlw</div>
</font></span><br>----<br>
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a href="http://electorama.com/em" target="_blank">http://electorama.com/em</a> for list info<br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>
<br><br>---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: David L Wetzell <<a href="mailto:wetzelld@gmail.com" target="_blank">wetzelld@gmail.com</a>><br>To: Jameson Quinn <<a href="mailto:jameson.quinn@gmail.com" target="_blank">jameson.quinn@gmail.com</a>><br>
Cc: EM <<a href="mailto:election-methods@lists.electorama.com" target="_blank">election-methods@lists.electorama.com</a>><br>Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:52:01 -0600<br>Subject: Re: [EM] Post-Autistic Electoral Analysis?<br>
We could both be right, one in the short-run and the other in the long-run...<div>
<br></div><div>dlw<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 4:42 PM, 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>2012/2/22 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">
As you may know, at the beginning of this century, French and English economics graduate students challenged the dominance of uber-mathematically analytical approaches to Economics in what became the<a href="http://www.paecon.net/HistoryPAE.htm" target="_blank"> Post-Autistic Economics movement. </a>A lot of their critiques apply similarly to rational choice models in political science and might be worth pondering for electoral analytics. <div>
<br></div><div>I myself consider my diffidence to jockeying for what's the best single-winner alternative to FPTP as blissfully ignoring how joe average voter(or habitual non-voter) is a creature of habit and won't respond to being given umpteen more choices in the way policy-wonkish electoral analysts would.This sort of behavioralist approach to voters is not unlike as shown by neurologists looking into<a href="http://www.thepoliticalbrain.com/videos.php" target="_blank"> the political brain</a>. </div>
</blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>I too consider my advocacy of SODA, and to a lesser extent MJ, as being strongly informed by a humanistic/cognitive view. It seems quite possible that one of us is wrong.</div><span><font color="#888888"><div>
<br></div>
<div>Jameson</div><div> </div></font></span></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Election-Methods mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Election-Methods@lists.electorama.com" target="_blank">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></div>
<br>----<br>
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a href="http://electorama.com/em" target="_blank">http://electorama.com/em</a> for list info<br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>