"trusted expert" is the heart of this debate. Such do not deserve to
exist except as a result of having demonstrated being experts.
DWK
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 21:19:22 -0700 Rob Lanphier wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-08-13 at 23:48 -0400, Dave Ketchum wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 17:35:19 -0700 Rob Lanphier wrote:
>>
>>>In fairness, the specification for counting votes is something that
>>>voters will probably care about, and it is one of the biggest
>>>liabilities of Condorcet. Part of the uphill battle for Condorcet
>>>advocates is to convince people that even if they don't understand
>>>exactly how it works, it's still a better system (the tactic I've
>>>usually advocated is endorsement from trusted smart people).
>>>
>>Seems to me that the above unreasonably penalizes Condorcet.
>>
>
> I don't make the rules in this world; I'm just pointing out the way
> things are.
>
>
>>We care not how complex the implementation of the counting program may be,
>>so long as it does its task in reasonable time and reasonable expense AND
>>that what it accomplishes is describable to voters.
>>
>
> I should amend this. I don't think we in any way try to obfuscate
> things, or stop trying to come up with ways of making this all seem very
> simple and straightforward. I'm saying that there are going to be some
> people who just won't get it, won't try to get it, but will trust the
> advice of a trusted expert. Different people have different learning
> styles and ways of working in the world. Some people want to understand
> for themselves, some people want to hear it from someone they trust.
>
> Part of the reason why I'm such a stickler about accuracy and
> self-reflection among Condorcet advocates is because I'm hoping we can
> get a reputation as fair-minded experts as opposed to "true believers"
> who warp the facts in order to sell Condorcet. So, hopefully, when
> people are looking for someone they trust to sort all of this stuff out,
> they trust us.
>
>
>>Mostly this program is counting the pairs, to declare the best of all to
>>be winner.
>>
>>When there is a near tie there is more effort, but major voter concern is
>>that we only get here on true near ties, and resolve such based on the
>>votes, and not some human's preference.
>>
>>"endorsement from trusted smart people" is NOT something we should claim.
>> We SHOULD have a description of what the counting does that is both true
>>and understandable without depending on some nonbelievable claim of
>>trustworthiness.
>>
>
> It's only as believable as the person making the claim. We really can't
> ignore this tactic.
>
>
>>>The rules for voters are much simpler for Condorcet than under Range.
>>>Under Range, failure to employ some counterintuitive strategies will
>>>lead to a weakening of your vote (i.e. you should pretend it's
>>>approval). Under Condorcet, sincerity is almost always optimal, which
>>>is tough to beat from a simplicity standpoint
>>>
>>These words please me more.
>>
>
> Aiming to please ;-)
>
> Rob
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice.
----
Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
