> > >> dlw: The two major-party equilibrium would be centered around the >> de facto center. >> >> >> KM: But positioning yourself around the de facto center is dangerous >> in IRV. You might get center-squeezed unless either you or your >> voters start using strategic lesser-evil logic - the same sort of >> logic that IRV was supposed to free you from by "being impervious >> to spoilers". >> >> dlw: the cost of campaigning in "less local" elections is high enuf that >> it's hard for a major party to get center-squeezed. And if such did >> happen, they could reposition to prevent it. >> > > RBJthe counterexample, again, is Burlington Vermont. Dems haven't sat in > the mayor's chair for decades. >
dlw: Not sure this is a relevant counter example. With IRV, the two major parties would become the Progs and the Dems who would be centered around the de facto center of Burlington. > > -- > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: matt welland <m...@kiatoa.com> > RBF: the counterexample, again, is Burlington Vermont. Dems haven't sat in > > the mayor's chair for decades. > > MW: Is this due to a split of the liberal vote by progressives or other > liberal blocs? Or is it due to a truly Republican leaning demographic? > dlw: More to the point, this is not an arg against IRV since it was only tried for one election in Burlington. > > MW:Also, do folks generally see approval as better than or worse than IRV? > > To me Approval seems to solve the spoiler problem without introducing > any unstable weirdness and it is much simpler and cheaper to do than > IRV. > dlw: I would not describe IRV as introducing unstable weirdness. It maintains a two-party dominated system and facilitates that those two major parties tend to position themselves around the de facto (shifting) center. > What do you think of the IRV3/AV3 system that treats the up to 3 ranked > votes as approval votes to get 3 finalists with IRV used in the final > stage? > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: robert bristow-johnson <r...@audioimagination.com> > To: election-methods@lists.electorama.com > Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2011 22:31:03 -0500 > Subject: Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage. > On 11/26/11 6:58 PM, matt welland wrote: > >> >>> MW:Is this due to a split of the liberal vote by progressives or other >> liberal blocs? Or is it due to a truly Republican leaning demographic? >> > RBS:Burlington is, for the U.S., a very very liberal town with a > well-educated and activist populace. it's the origin of Ben & Jerry's and > now these two guys are starting a movement ( http://movetoamend.org/ ) to > get a constitutional amendment to reverse the obscene Citizens United > ruling of the Supreme Court. > > the far north end of Burlington (called the "New North End", also where i > live) is a little more suburban in appearance and here is where the GOP > hangs in this town. > > the mayors have been Progs with an occasional GOP. it is precisely the > "center squeeze" syndrome and IRV didn't solve that problem. and without > getting Condorcet adopted, i am not sure how it will be reversed. > dlw: If you had given IRV another election, it would have likely solved the problem. You cannot seriously think that one Burlington has driven a stake in the heart of IRV for once and forever. > >> RBS:but the only voting methods folks generally see here are FPTP, FPTP > with a delayed runoff, and IRV. and, thanks to FairVote, nearly everyone > are ignorant of other methods to tabulate the ranked ballot than the STV > method in IRV. > dlw: And it was hard work to get people to get IRV..., just think how hard it would be to teach them about 4 very heterogeneous election rules. > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Jameson Quinn <jameson.qu...@gmail.com> > To: David L Wetzell <wetze...@gmail.com> > Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2011 22:32:53 -0600 > Subject: Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage. > Here's I think the crux of your mistake: > >> We can't say it's just a matter of opinion, cuz it's probably not such, >> > > I don't want to get too far into philosophical issues here, but I think > that in one sense we can basically take it for granted that it's not such: > that, in the proverbial phrase, God does, in fact, know whether > p(irv_succeeds_broadly | voting_reform_succeeds_broadly ) is close to 1, > close to 0.5, or close to 0. (I say that as shorthand; I'm actually quite > convinced God doesn't exist, I'm just saying I believe in objective truth.) > dlw: Args about God are for another list-serve... I'd say I'd bet my life that P(irv_succeeds_broadly_among_single-winner_elections | maintain existing voting reform strategy(+ IRV3/AV3 tweak)) >> P(another_election_rule_replaces_irv_and succeeds_broadly_et al. | existing voting reform strategy is subverted on the basis of electoral analytical args + Burlington, VT case-study) > > But the fact that the truth is out there, does not imply that it is > either desirable or possible for people to stop arguing about it before we > have much clearer evidence of what it is. > dlw: The existence of the truth + exigencies of the US system can make it pragmatically wise to subdue some differences for a spell. > > >> and so what makes sense to me is to rally around IRV3/AV3 >> > > Exactly. What makes sense to YOU. You have chosen to believe in a certain > scenario about the future. But repeating and repeating your plausible, but > non-overwhelming, reasons for making that choice, simply is not going to > lead to everyone lining up behind you. > dlw: We can't do over-whelming with so little real world experimentation in the use of single-winner election rules for political elections. We gotta raise our alpha level. Apart from my args is the reality that there is institutional support for pushing the use of IRV+PR and its made significant inroads among progressive activists. This is a fact. It is what under girds my choice to believe in a certain scenario about the future. > > JQ: We already have a nice dinner riding on each of us believing "I'm > right and you're reasonable enough to see that eventually". But I think I > could make you some further bets where your overconfident belief would make > you a sucker. > 1. I'd bet you at 5:1 odds that you won't convince this list to do what > you say. You can propose your own terms, but I'm thinking of something like > the following: 2 years from today, take "people on this list" to mean > "email addresses, weighted by max(0, ln(number of posts to this list))", > that there will be more people on this list who support other methods over > IRV than vice versa, by objective metrics. So I'd put up $500 against your > $100. > dlw: I'd be willing to bet that if we ran a f-p-t-p election that actually had significant consequences in terms of list-member money going to support electoral reform activism then a plurality of list-members, weighted by their participation, would vote strategically in favor of IRV3/AV3 over any of the 4 other contenders. This will be because the 4 others will likely remain at a serious marketing disadvantage with US voters. Now, this might be because of strategic voting, but such would be wise when using FPTP. I don't know what would happen if we used approval voting, because I know the antipathy twds IRV is strong among many here and there's not likely to be much new stuff going on empirically to break that view point. I don't know what would be the case if we didn't make it have consequences, because that is what happens on list-serves, as opposed to among electoral activists laying their face/careers on the line over a specific electoral reform. Those who face the real world consequences tend to go with IRV or IRV3. This is because it's a decent rule and a path of less resistance, especially relative to pushing a new rule(s) that most people don't understand and that would require much more costly spade work in voter-education. JQ: 2. I'd bet you at even odds that, ten years from today, IF more than 20 > different US jurisdictions have separately implemented some single winner > reform, that fewer than 10 of those are IRV. (I agree with you that if > voting reform continues with limited, scattered success as today, that it > will probably be mostly IRV. But I think that the case where it > successfully takes off is a different kettle of fish.) I'd put up to $200 > on this bet. > dlw: I'd be all over that if all I cared about was money, but I think it's a sincere and very much mistaken sentiment. > > JQ: I'm serious about both of these offers. If you're serious about what > you affirm on this list, you should take me up on them, because you would > have to believe that they're safe bets for you. Of course, since I'm > talking about real money, though hopefully something either of us could > afford, I wouldn't make these bets without further clarifying the rules and > finding some way we can make our 2/10 year commitments reasonably > trustworthy to each other. > dlw: I believe you're serious. Like I said, I'm not that motivated by money....(especially for a guy with a PhD in Econ.) It's a byproduct of me being an aspie. So I'd feel bad about taking you up on the 2nd one and the first bet is inadequately framed in my view.... > > Jameson > > _______________________________________________ > Election-Methods mailing list > Election-Methods@lists.electorama.com > http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com > >
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info