They don't always change their priors *much*. It depends on the evidence...
And I do rationalize. I just don't want to rationalize the fact that the difficulties this list-serve has in agreeing on the best single-winner election rule is consistent with the possibility that there wouldn't be that much in differences if oth replaced irv or there wouldn't be that much a diff relative to if irv+ replaced irv, since competitive 3-way single-winner elections are rare in the US and not stable and Burlington-like anomalies/pathologies aren't so bad in a multi-stage game and angels don't necessarily lose their wings whenever someone is pressured to vote strategically. And I will concede that among electoral reform analysts there is a strong preference for multi-party systems. However, this may reflect ideological stuff that led them to invest themselves in becoming electoral reform analysts in the first place. If we had a different kind of 2-party system then they'd "rationalize" or realize that the diffs aren't so great. dlw On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Jameson Quinn <jameson.qu...@gmail.com>wrote: > Bayesians don't accept or reject their priors; they adjust them in > response to any new evidence. > > Humans, on the other hand, rationalize. I do it to. But in this case, you > have to admit that you're quacking an awful lot like that kind of duck. > > Jameson > > > 2012/2/6 David L Wetzell <wetze...@gmail.com> > >> Rationality in the face of the complexity of reality entails having >> priors and valuing empiricism(based on more than a case-study) over theory. >> There's not evidence to make me reject my prior that in the short-run in >> the US that the variance in the quality of alternatives to FPTP(apart from >> "top 2 primary") is not great enuf to justify trying to change horses going >> different directions. And, It greatly pales in the face of the evidence >> that the use of Am forms of PR is crucial to stop the cut-throat >> competitive struggle between our top two parties to dominate US politics. >> >> dlw >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Jameson Quinn >> <jameson.qu...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> 2012/2/6 David L Wetzell <wetze...@gmail.com> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Agreed, but no chance this will happen. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> What if electoral analysts put more of their power into showing >>>>>> others why such a change would be for the greater good, rather than >>>>>> dickering over which single-winner election rule is the best??? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps you should apply this audacious hope argument to the p_x's. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Not-so much if I'm right about the variance of the Xs for single-winner >>>> political elections... >>>> >>>> Which would better have helped me guess you would say this: modeling >>> you as a rational truth-seeker, or modeling you as someone rationalizing >>> pre-decided conclusions? >>> >>> Jameson >>> >> >> >
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
