On Aug 16, 2011, at 9:16 AM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
I understand your arguments, though you've neglected MJ and SODA.
But as I keep arguing, this statement isn't about finding the right
answer, it's about finding the best answer that we can all agree on.
JQ
2011/8/15 Dave Ketchum <da...@clarityconnect.com>
Strategy thoughts:
Assuming as candidates, Good, Soso, and lice: My preference is G
but S is better than any lice. Thus I desire to vote for both G and
S with G preferred.
While a voter can often identify one target for all their attention,
or more which share being best liked, I see my description of G and S
as identifying a common other major desire.
SODA? If, when a voter lists multiple candidates, they are treated as
in approval, I see SODA as grouping with approval.
MJ? J am not sure what this is - would it, like many, fit among what
I have described? For example there are many flavors of Condorcet of
varying quality, though not worth mentioning in the current effort
(yet I see IRV as different enough to deserve mention).
Dave Ketchum
Plurality - can not vote for both. On days when I expect G to
certainly lose I vote for S to protect, as best I can, against lice.
Approval - can vote for both but this can cause G to lose. Simple
rules and a bit better than plurality.
IRV - can vote for both. Vote counting is both much labor and can
fail to elect G even though best liked, if this is not seen by the
way the counters look at the ballots.
Range - can vote for both. After giving G top rating, S has a
strategy headache: Rate S high and risk S winning over G; rate S low
and risk S losing to lice.
Condorcet - can vote for both and show clear preference for G over S.
On Aug 15, 2011, at 9:20 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
2011/8/15 Jonathan Lundell <jlund...@pobox.com>
On Aug 15, 2011, at 11:58 AM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
It's true that I might agree to a statement if all it said were
"We believe that approval is marginally superior to
plurality" (thought to the extent that I agreed, I don't think
it's enough better to merit any energy in advocating it). But
that's not what you're proposing. Is it?
No. I'm proposing saying that, in different words, along with a
number of other things with which you haven't disagreed. Including
that we believe that approval is a step towards systems which we
see as significantly superior to plurality. (Remember - just as
approval is 2-level Range, approval is also 2-level Schulze or
what have you, and also no-intercandidate-preference SODA, etc.)
So, either propose some specific change in the language relating
to approval, or bring some other objection, or both.
The statement says, in effect, "Range is good, IRV is bad". I
disagree.
Perhaps I'm the only one, in which case it's inconsequential that
I'm not aboard.
(What Schulze are we talking about? I associate the name with a
Condorcet-cycle-breaking method.)
It doesn't say that. It says, we can agree that range is at least
marginally better than plurality, we cannot agree on that for IRV.
I would happily sign a separate statement saying IRV is better than
plurality, but I think including that here would lose too many.
Schulze is just my default example of a complex but good Condorcet
tiebreaker. And if you run it with only two-level ballots, it is
equivalent to approval.
If you want to suggest rewording to make it clear that you're only
giving the weakest possible endorsement to Range, then go ahead.
But remember, any amount you weaken the "these are good systems"
section, weakens it for all of the listed systems. Because we are
not going to get many people to sign on to a statement that makes
distinctions between those systems.
Or say clearly that you can't sign the statement in any form, and
we'll stop worrying about you. I want this to get as much support
as possible, but I know that I'll never get everyone.
Again, I personally agree with much of what you are saying.
Approval does force strategic thinking on the voter, more than many
other options. (That's also true of Range, but not of MJ, so you
shouldn't generalize to "rating systems".) But this is not about
just me.
JQ
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info