<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>The most basic problem in this situation has nothing to do with
choosing among approval voting, score voting, the alternative
vote, the Condorcet criterion, or anything else. It's to determine
what options should (and shouldn't) be on the ballot.</p>
<p>Parliament's most conspicuous failure in this regard (in which
they are joined by the entire press corps, as far as I know) is to
treat a second referendum as it if were an alternative on a list
of alternatives. The question whether to put a decision of
Parliament to a confirmatory vote of the people is entirely
separate from what decision Parliament should make. The questions
are politically interrelated, in the sense that MPs on the losing
end of a debate in Parliament are far more likely to call for a
referendum than MPs who won that debate. (In fact, that's kind of
what referenda are, at least in the United States.) But this
relationship is no reason to include a such a confirmatory vote as
an option in the current "indicative" voting process.<br>
</p>
But that's only the beginning. There's also the question of whether
to include "unicorns" on the ballot. "Unicorn" is the term used by
U.K. politicians and commentators to denigrate proposals that they
claim cannot possibly be implemented, for example because the
European Union would never go along with them. Just asking this
question makes it clear that it's really a matter of deciding who
gets to decide which proposals are "unicorns" and which ones aren't.
Good luck finding any agreement on that.<br>
<p>And, finally, there's the problem of clones and near clones. How
many combinations of customs union and/or single market and/or
regulatory "alignment" and/or technological alternatives to border
checkpoints are need to insure that the ideal (and purely
hypothetical) ballot includes the option that "should" win --
whatever "should" means in the context of voting and elections.<br>
</p>
<p>When people are voting on candidates to fill an office, the
problem of nominations is very different and much more manageable.
A set of qualifications can be agreed on in advance of any
nominations being made. Votes for candidates who are not actually
running can be disregarded. And so on. But when you're trying to
formalize a process for choosing among more than two policy
options, what the options are is often a crucial part of what the
debate is about.<br>
</p>
<p>As far as I know, social choice theory and the study of voting
methods have very little to say about this problem, except in one
setting. That's the more normal kind of parliamentary procedure
where everything is laid out as motions, amendments, substitute
motions and so on. The well-understood limitations of that process
-- the importance of the order in which amendments are dealt with,
the role of strategic voting, and so on -- are exactly why we'd
like to be able to vote all at once on a list of options in the
first place.<br>
</p>
<p>--Bob Richard<br>
</p>
On 4/1/2019 3:57 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:464bbd77874e70ec48d8269252f05d4a.squirrel@webmail04.register.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<p> </p>
<p>you're right Toby. MP's can be expected to take on the burden
that Olympic figure-skating judges do and consider deeply and
convert their subjective impressions into numerical ratings.</p>
<p>But They're Partisans!! They do not want their second-choice
preference to defeat
their first-choice preference. That will also affect how they
adjust their Scores for each option that is neither their
favorite option nor their most-hated option.<br>
<br>
so i do not extend sympathy to MP's for being "burdened" with a
tactical decision in their vote (as i do to regular citizen
voters), but the issue still remains. what keeps MP's from
voting strategically, rather than sincerely, and a perverse
Score outcome
results?</p>
<p>bestest,</p>
<p>r b-j</p>
<p>(And i just cannot resist saying that pro-Brexit Brits are
almost as silly and harmful as Trumpers are in the U.S. Whatta
goddamn shame.)</p>
<p><br>
---------------------------- Original Message
----------------------------<br>
Subject: Re: [EM] Comprehensive, Simple, and Informative
Indicative<br>
From: "Toby Pereira" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:tdp201b@yahoo.co.uk"><tdp201b@yahoo.co.uk></a><br>
Date: Mon, April 1, 2019 3:40 pm<br>
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com">"rbj@audioimagination.com"</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com"><rbj@audioimagination.com></a><br>
"EM list" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:election-methods@electorama.com"><election-methods@electorama.com></a><br>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
> In this case though, some sort of approval/rating is needed
because parliament have the option of rejecting everything, or
accepting more than one proposal, which can then be further
debated. It would be no good to find the Condorcet winner and
simply implement that without knowing what the MPs
actually think of it.<br>
> These "indicative votes" are not the same as a single
one-off election for a candidate to a post. They are non-binding
votes to see if there is any way of the UK leaving the EU that a
majority of parliament can get behind.<br>
> Toby<br>
><br>
> On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 23:13, robert
bristow-johnson<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com"><rbj@audioimagination.com></a> wrote: ----<br>
> Election-Methods mailing list - see
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://electorama.com/em">https://electorama.com/em</a> for list info<br>
><br>
></p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p><br>
--<br>
<br>
r b-j <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com">rbj@audioimagination.com</a><br>
<br>
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."<br>
</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">----
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://electorama.com/em">https://electorama.com/em</a> for list info
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>