Re: [Election-Methods] [english 95%] Re: [english 94%] Re: method design challenge+new method AMP
Dear Raphfrk, it did not think through all you wrote yet, but one point troubles me: Also, it is majority compliant. If a majority support a candidate first choice (i.e. first choice and nominate him), then he cannot lose. If that is true, your method cannot be a solution to the given problem, since any majoritarian method will elect A in the situation I described -- remember that voters are strategic! Yours, Jobst Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
[Election-Methods] Partisan Politics
Good Morning, Juho re: ... I'm more inclined to see the parties still as units that still get their strength and mandate to rule from the citizens themselves (and from their lack of interest to make the parties better and control them better). Although I (obviously) don't share your view, I will agree that the parties get their strength from the subset of the electorate that supports them. My dissent is based on (1) the fact that the so-called 'mandate' comes from a tiny subset of the electorate, (2) the 'mandate' results in destruction of the separation of powers intended to protect us from improper concentrations of political influence, and (3) it is maintained by the absolute suppression of alternatives. Instead of democracy, a tiny minority of the people provide the strength and mandate to rule that dictates the choices available to the rest of us. re: Strong emphasis on the regional representation and close contacts between the representatives and voters may to some extent also reduce the need to offer full political proportionality. We should consider the possibility that focusing on 'regional representation' and 'proportionality' are misleading. An electoral method that empowers each and every member of the electorate to the extent of their desire and ability is regional and proportional, by definition. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
[Election-Methods] Partisan Politics
Good Morning, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax After studying your missive, it appears you make three points: Your preference for Free Association, your advocacy of Delegable Proxy, and your travails with Wikipedia. As to the latter, I can offer neither help nor guidance. I will, however, comment on the other two. Delegable Proxy The wisdom of delegating one's proxy in an election is directly proportional to the knowledge one has of the person to whom the proxy is delegated. In the absence of a clear description of the method by which one's proxy will be bestowed upon another, it is not possible for me to evaluate the logic of the suggestion. Free Association In suggesting government by Free Association, you cite the functioning of Alcoholics Anonymous as an example. I stand second to no-one in my admiration for that organization. To the extent we can learn from it, we will all be winners. As an example of Free Association, though, Alcoholics Anonymous does not fit the bill. Those who join AA are by no means free. They are driven, to the point of self-destruction. They join AA to avoid that terrible consequence. Those blessed by nature with not having to spend their lives battling such an evil, lack the incentive for such association. You may argue, and perhaps you do, that humans are addicted to self-gratification and should form an association to control that manifestation. If so, your description of how it's to be done needs body. Your assertions that the solution is astonishingly simple and is only forestalled by ignorance, cynicism, and despair are of questionable merit. By what yardstick can such a verdict be rendered? Whose profound knowledge makes that judgment valid? To say the people are ignorant, cynical and despairing must, presumably, include me, and I'm averse to accepting that characterization. Such a view is self-defeating. Voters are human. They react to stimuli in a human fashion. If they are lazy and ignorant, they have always been so and will always be so. Sermonizing will not change them. There are a multitude of reasons why people vote as they do. Party loyalty, name recognition, union membership, corporate influence, radio and television promotion, issues, and any number of other things influence how one's vote is cast. The fact that the result of those votes displeases us does not justify impugning the intellect or ambition of those who voted contrary to our preference. Those who control our political infrastructure are professionals and their profession is getting their candidates elected. Their job is to persuade the electorate to vote for their candidate. To imagine them incompetent at their trade is to grossly underestimate them. We need to look deeper. We have to question things we've taken for granted most of our lives because those are the things that produced our present state of affairs. If you still feel the public is ignorant, or cynical or whatever, and the solution is simple it would be best if we move on to another ... hopefully more productive ... point. Fred Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [Election-Methods] [english 95%] Re: [english 94%] Re: method design challenge+new method AMP
Jobst wrote: Dear Raphfrk,? it did not think through all you wrote yet, but one point troubles me:? Also, it is majority compliant. If a majority support a candidate first choice (i.e. first choice and nominate him), then he cannot lose.? If that is true, your method cannot be a solution to the given problem, since any majoritarian method will elect A in the situation I described -- remember that voters are strategic!? Yours, Jobst Right, under the assumption of perfect strategy.? However, only a small number of voters need to nominate C as compromise for C to win. Are you assuming that the 51% block of voters knows that they have the majority ? In the case you give 51: ACB 49: BCA It seems to me that the voters, will not be sure which of the main candidates have a chance. Assuming the odds are 50/50 and considering a voter in the 51 block and how they cast their nominate vote: Nominate C This will either have no effect or cause C to win. A-C shift: -48 B-C shift: +52 expected utility: +2 Nominate A or B This will either have no effect or shift away from C C-A shift: +48 C-B shift: -52 expected utility: -2 Thus, it is worth it for A and B supporters to nominate C instead of A. Only, 3% of them need to actually do it to elect C. Btw, I think your original proposal is pretty cool too.? I wonder what the effects of putting a threshold would be on the strategic effects. For example, if a candidate represents more than 90% of the balls in the urn, they are declared the winner without drawing any. Raphfrk Interesting site what if anyone could modify the laws www.wikocracy.com AOL's new homepage has launched. Take a tour at http://info.aol.co.uk/homepage/ now. Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [Election-Methods] [english 89%] Re: [english 95%] Re: [english 95%] Re: [english 94%]Re: method designchallenge+new method AMP
Dear Raphfrk, I also see no obvious way how the Anti-STV approach might become clone-proof when voters (or factions) can add options. So, the method AMP (and variants thereof) still seems to be the only solution yet... I wonder if anyone comes up with a different approach. In particular, every utilitarian should be interested strongly in solving this problem, I guess :-) Yours, Jobst [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: Jobst wrote: Do you think one could modify the Anti-STV approach in a different way to overcome the cloning problem without making the method majoritarian? It is hard to see how to force a majority to give information about lower preferences without having some form of candidate control. However, if you give the candidate control to the voters, then the majority can put up a majority of the candidates. Raphfrk Interesting site what if anyone could modify the laws www.wikocracy.com AOL's new homepage has launched. Take a tour http://info.aol.co.uk/homepage/ now. Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
