Re: [EM] Newbie to the list here
Hi Peter, >3. I think that plurality is the worst possible of the voting systems >that do not involve randomness, except for antiplurality voting. Nice, I got as far as "I think that plurality is the worst possible..." before thinking to myself "I have antiplurality performing worse," and what do you know, you thought of that. And random methods are a pretty good exception too. >4. I have been checking in the electowiki archives once in a blue >moon for some time, and finally decided to subscribe. >7. I have not seen any (not that I have looked for it all that >studiously) FAQ being reposted. What is the best way of knowing >whether a topic has been flogged to death before one posts on it >yet again? Since it seems that you know about the archives I don't think there is anything else you can consult. There is no gospel truth on this list... We have total agreement on very little. It would be interesting to come up with a FAQ that outlines the various positions people take on age old issues. But I guess a lot of perspectives could be attributed to exactly one person each. And I'm not sure a collaborative approach would ever complete a version that everybody would be happy with... Kevin Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
[EM] Lomax reply, 3/12/12
Abd: Thanks for the flattery, but I don't claim to always live up to it, because errors are part of voting system discussion, and I routinely make at least my share of them. These days don't get so many opportunities to return to the computer, and so this reply will almost surely have to be in installments. I've been away from the computer since Friday. >> >> >If you rank your favorite, F, in 1st place, s/he gets a majority, >> >even though s/he doesn't win, because someone else has a higher >> >majority. >> >>That's apparently quite unusual. Even if multple votes in first rank >>are allowed -- they certainly should be -- most voters will not use them. > > >You don't have sufficient information to make that prediction. Sure I do. There are some scenarios that can be asserted that can lead to a conclusion that if overvoting is allowed in first rank, [endquote] Overvoting is equal-ranking, correct? You continued: voters will use it strategically. Otherwise, from what we know about Approval Voting, and from the history of Bucklin in certian elections, I *predict* that most voters won't use them. Mike, do you have sufficient information to show that this is unlikely to be true? [endquote] Certainly, at least as regards Approval: Right now, many or nearly all progressives, people who want policies more progressive, humane, or innovative than those of the Democrats, insist on "pragmatically" holding their noses and voting for the Democrat in Plurality. So, what will they do in Approval? They'll continue voting for the Democrat, but will also vote for everyone who is better than the Democrat. They'll vote for at least two candidates. Nader and Gore, for instance, if they prefer Nader, but feel a need to vote for Gore as a lesser-evil. As for ABucklin (ER-Bucklin), no one can say for sure. It's my perception that often one's best strategy will be to only vote for a set of candidates at first rank position. When there are completely unacceptable candidates who could win, one's best strategy is to top-rank all of the acceptables and not rank anyone else. When the fear about failing to elect one of the better candidates isn't so great, one might want to distinguish between some of them by ranking them at several rank-levels, though that increases the risk that someone else will win. But sometimes maybe not. Imagine an Approval election in which the ABucklin option is allowed. If someone you don't like has an early majority, maybe largely from Approval ballots, then you're out of luck. Candidates in your ranking who haven't yet received your Abucklin votes lose because you've missed your chance to help them (as you could have if you'd top-ranked them). Looking at ABucklin as an option in an Approval election, that vote-management option doesn't look like necessarily always a good idea. That suggests that, in an ABucklin elecion, voting Approval-style might often be the best way to vote. But that's just my subjective impression. > My answer >to that is that plumping is a valid good strategy if no one but your favorite >is acceptable to you, or if you're sure that s/he will win if you don't rank >anyone else. "Plumping" here means? I get two possible meanings. It means bullet voting, entirely, or it means only voting for one in first rank. [endquote] Yes, "plumping" is voting for only one candidate. Many voters only care about voting for their favorite, no matter what system you give them, unless you *force* them to add additional preferences. [endquote] But not many progressives, regrettably. Nearly all progressives refuse to vote for their favorite, voting instead for a "lesser-evil". There's no reason to believe that all those people will stop voting for a lesser-evil in the 1st Approval election. But they'll be able to also vote for everyone who is better. But yes, after the 1st Approval election, when the reported vote totals show that a progressive candidate can beat a Republican, hopefully many or most of those voters will stop voting for the Democrat, and will only vote for their genuine favorite(s). Maybe for their one most favorite candidate. Maybe for several best candidates who are all significantly better than the others. All of the Approval strategies that we've discussed here amount to voting for every candidate who is better than your expectation for the election. >From conversations with Democrat-voters, it's my opinion that, among those who >have actually looked at or listened to candidates' and parties' policy proposals, no one considers the Democrat their favorite. I don't think that the Democrats have any serious favorite-voters. They're only lesser-evils. Their genuine support doesn't exist. With the enactment of Approval, those fictitious hollow-men known as Democrats will cease to appear to exist. Indeed, that was the thinking behind Carroll's invention of Asset Voting. >Those were only municipal elections, of course.
Re: [EM] Newbie to the list here
O gosh. Lame question: What am I doing wrong with the line breaks? There are line breaks in the text that I posed from my email account. Yours, Nordic Voting Nerd Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Newbie to the list here
Hi! I hope this post gets put in the right thread. 1. I live in Sweden, but am interested in voting systems all over the world.2. I do not do twitter - I detest trying to shoehorn complex ideas into 150 characters. I do not even read twitter.3. I think that plurality is the worst possible of the voting systems that do not involve randomness, except for antiplurality voting.4. I have been checking in the electowiki archives once in a blue moon for some time, and finally decided to subscribe.5. I follow another discussion board, which has a "politics" subfolder. In it, board members (who were attracted to the board not due to its politics, but due to it being the by far larget discussion board covering its topic, a sport) discuss politics, usually from an American POV. The board members would from time to time lament on this or that pathology of the US. political system. I, as one of the few board members from a country that uses proportional representation, pointed out - repeatedly - that they were due to the pathologies inherent of FPTP, and the behaviors that it engenders among the politicians who work within its framework. I wrote about other election systems, their characteristics, and different types of pathologies as a public education mission. I had very limited sucess in getting people to think in new ways, which frustrated me greatly. Considering that the sport that the discussion board is all about strongly selects for brains (dumb people simply can not get any more than quite limited success in the sport, no matter how good physical specimens they are), this made me even more disheartened. I have therefore decided to greatly tone down my public education efforts on that board, and to find a hopefully more receptive group of people.6. I am interested in all sorts of voting systems, though single-winner more that multiwinner. I am also planning to present an idea on a voting system for TV voting events that is resistant to multiple-voting efforts by fans that phone in many times, without the system having to indentify the voters who vote/phone in multiple times. I also have a bunch of other ideas on various voting system topics that I am planning to put up on the board so that fresh eyes can tear them down if they have any holes in them that I have overlooked.7. I have not seen any (not that I have looked for it all that studiously) FAQ being reposted. What is the best way of knowing whether a topic has been flogged to death before one posts on it yet again? Yours, Nordic Voting Nerd From: jameson.qu...@gmail.com Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 05:08:26 -0600 Subject: Re: [EM] Newbie to the list here To: mining...@hotmail.com CC: election-methods@lists.electorama.com I don't believe there is a standard way to introduce yourself, yet; but I think there should be. So: welcome to the list! What I'd like to know about you and other newbies is:-What country or countries are you involved in? -What's your twitter handle if any? (Mine, for voting-related matters, is bettercount_us).-Any comments on your positions on voting methods? Favorite method, more interested in single/multi winner, more interested in rated/ranked methods, etc. Jameson Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Newbie to the list here
I don't believe there is a standard way to introduce yourself, yet; but I think there should be. So: welcome to the list! What I'd like to know about you and other newbies is: -What country or countries are you involved in? -What's your twitter handle if any? (Mine, for voting-related matters, is bettercount_us). -Any comments on your positions on voting methods? Favorite method, more interested in single/multi winner, more interested in rated/ranked methods, etc. Jameson 2012/3/12 Peter Gustafsson > Hi! > > > I have read some archived discussions before, but this is my first post. I > have not yet seen any post in which a newbie introduces himself, so I do > not know the etiquette for doing that on this list. If there are any formal > (or unformal) rules pertaining to that for this list, I would be most > grateful if I were directed to them. > > > Yours, > > Nordic Voting Nerd > > > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info > > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
[EM] Newbie to the list here
Hi! I have read some archived discussions before, but this is my first post. I have not yet seen any post in which a newbie introduces himself, so I do not know the etiquette for doing that on this list. If there are any formal (or unformal) rules pertaining to that for this list, I would be most grateful if I were directed to them. Yours, Nordic Voting Nerd Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
