[EM] E-Petition for the Schulze Method
Hallo, here is an e-petition for the Schulze method: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/31387 Markus Schulze Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] E-Petition for the Schulze Method
On 3/23/12 12:00 PM, Markus Schulze wrote: Hallo, here is an e-petition for the Schulze method: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/31387 note the ".gov.uk" . i guess i am not eligible. Markus Schulze Markus, if you find an e-petition for Schulze here in the US, i'll sign it. i will also sign one for Tideman or MinMax or practically any Condorcet method. -- r b-j r...@audioimagination.com "Imagination is more important than knowledge." Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] E-Petition for the Schulze Method
On 03/23/2012 05:36 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote: On 3/23/12 12:00 PM, Markus Schulze wrote: Hallo, here is an e-petition for the Schulze method: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/31387 note the ".gov.uk" . i guess i am not eligible. You can sign (just choose "No" to "British citizen or UK resident?"), but I suppose your signature as a foreigner will carry less weight than that of a citizen. Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] E-Petition for the Schulze Method
On 3/23/12 2:37 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote: On 03/23/2012 05:36 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote: On 3/23/12 12:00 PM, Markus Schulze wrote: Hallo, here is an e-petition for the Schulze method: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/31387 note the ".gov.uk" . i guess i am not eligible. You can sign (just choose "No" to "British citizen or UK resident?"), but I suppose your signature as a foreigner will carry less weight than that of a citizen. i did that and the response was only UK citizens or residents may participate. -- r b-j r...@audioimagination.com "Imagination is more important than knowledge." Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
[EM] E-Petition for Schulze Method
Like Robert Bristow-Johnson, I was unable to indicate support for the Schulze method at http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/31387, and the submissions conditions reproduced below explain why not. Stephen H. Sosnick "Submission Conditions "An e-petition may freely disagree with the government or call for changes of policy. There will be no attempt to exclude critical views. Decisions to accept or reject will be made on an impartial basis. "However, to protect this service from abuse, e-petitions must satisfy some basic conditions. "To create or sign an e-petition, you must be either: * a British citizen * a resident in the UK (you normally live in the UK)" Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
[EM] Dave: Approval-objection answers
Dave: You wrote: On Mar 22, 2012, at 4:09 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote: > On 03/22/2012 07:57 PM, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote: >> There are plenty of voters who report having to "hold their nose" and >> vote only for someone they don't like. They'd all like to be able to >> vote for better candidates to, including their favorites. Even if one >> only counts the Democrat voters who say that they're strategically >> forced >> to vote only for someone they don't really like, amounts to a lot of >> people who'd see the improvement brought by Approval. If there is no one acceptable to vote for, the voters have not done their job: . Could happen occasionally such as failures in doing nominations. Write-ins can help recover for this. [endquote] There could be elections in which there's no one acceptable to vote for, but, as you said, even then, there should be write-ins. But, even with the difficulty of getting non-big-2 parties on the ballot, and especially after the way Approval will open things up, there will usually be someone reasonably acceptable on the ballot. Even now, ballots often have a wide variety of candidates and parties. You continued: "strategically forced" should not be doable for how a particular voter voted [endquote] It's doable because many voters are so resigned and cowed that it doesn't take much to force them to do giveaway compromise strategy, without any reliable information to justify that strategy. I refer to the progressive people who think they strategically need to vote for the Democrat. You continued: (but no one voted for the supposedly forced choice [endquote] Regrettably, millions vote for that "choice", because it's billed as one of "the two choices". You continued: - why force such a hated choice? [endquote] To keep voters from voting for someone whom they genuinely prefer. What the public, including the voters, would like isn't the same as what is most profitable to those who own the media that tell us about "the two choices". Everyone believes that only they have the preferences that they have, because that's how it looks in the media. Notice that all politicians routinely promise change. That's because they know that the public wants change. So the politicians are adamant about change. They're mad as hell and they want to do something about it, and give us change. Amazingly, that pretense continues to reliably work, every time. You continued: OMOV may inspire some - many of us have to argue against it having value because we back, as better, methods this thought argues about - such as Condorcet, Score, and even IRV. [endquote] OMOV is easily answered by pointing out that Approval let's everyone rate each candidate as approved or unapproved. You continued: Part of the chicken dilemma difficulty is that it depends on what some voters will do without any compulsion, and what others will do after making promises to cooperate [endquote] The chicken dilemma is very difficult to get rid of. I don't know of anyone proposing a FBC-complying method that really gets rid of that problem. The methods that I call "defection-resistant" do much to alleviate that problem, but don't eliminate it. They just push it to a secondary level, where defection strategy is more complicated and counterintuitive, and therefore less likely to be used. A party whose members might defect by not support your party in Approval isn't likely to engage in the Machiavellianly bizarre strategy of conditionally approving Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians and Nazis in order to gain some mutual conditional approvals. Not if ethical reputation counts for anything. I've said that methods that don't get rid of that problem don't significantly improve on ordinary Approval. All that can be said for the defection-resistant methods is that they might improve a little on Approval, in a way. In other words, the improvement is questionable at best. And, for most methods trying to improve on Approval, the improvement is outright illusory. I'd say that Approval can't be improved on, other than questionably or doubtfully. Mike Ossipoff Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
[EM] Kristofer: Democrat Tribal Plot
Kristofer: You wrote: Yes, that could work for Democrats and those who don't want to vote for the lesser evil. The poll does seem to have a rather large number of people who go "this is a liberal plot to swindle the election from us", though. and the "tribalist counting coup" guys who are going "okay, I know Approval is a Democrat plot [endquote] I think that the best answer to that "Democrat plot" argument is to say: "Republicans have lost elections because of non-Republican conservative spoilers. Only you can say whether you consider that important, and a reason for you to support Approval. I can't speak to that issue. Of course you're welcome to support Approval if the answer is yes. "What I can tell you is that many, many Democrat voters report that they're holding their nose to vote for a "lesser-of-2-evils", whom they don't really like or want. There are a lot of such people. If they, and only they, want to be able to approve the candidates whom they like better than their distasteful compromise, including their favorites, and if they therefore support Approval, that will be enough. "No, I'm not favoring the Democrat voters. I'm just frankly stating that they're likely to be Approval's best customers." Approval will benefit those who suffer the worst from Plurality's faults. If that's the Democrat voters, then the Republicans won't like Approval. That can't be helped. As for the 0-info angry-noises posts at SodaHead, with their incoherent Approval opposition, one possibility would be to ignore them. The other would be to calmly and politely answer their objections as if those objections were seriously-meant. Mike Ossipoff Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Dave: Approval-objection answers
2012/3/23 MIKE OSSIPOFF > > Dave: > > You wrote: > > On Mar 22, 2012, at 4:09 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote: > > > On 03/22/2012 07:57 PM, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote: > >> There are plenty of voters who report having to "hold their nose" and > > >> vote only for someone they don't like. They'd all like to be able to > >> vote for better candidates to, including their favorites. Even if one > >> only counts the Democrat voters who say that they're strategically > > >> forced > >> to vote only for someone they don't really like, amounts to a lot of > >> people who'd see the improvement brought by Approval. > > If there is no one acceptable to vote for, the voters have not done > > their job: > . Could happen occasionally such as failures in doing > nominations. Write-ins can help recover for this. > > [endquote] > > There could be elections in which there's no one acceptable to vote for, but, > as you > > said, even then, there should be write-ins. > > But, even with the difficulty of getting non-big-2 parties on the ballot, and > especially > after the way Approval will open things up, there will usually be someone > reasonably > > acceptable on the ballot. Even now, ballots often have a wide variety of > candidates > and parties. > > You continued: > > "strategically forced" should not be doable for how a particular voter > voted > > [endquote] > > It's doable because many voters are so resigned and cowed that it doesn't > take much to force them to do giveaway compromise strategy, without any > reliable information to justify that strategy. I refer to the progressive > people > > who think they strategically need to vote for the Democrat. > > You continued: > > (but no one voted for the supposedly forced choice > > [endquote] > > Regrettably, millions vote for that "choice", because it's billed as one of > "the two choices". > > You continued: > > - why force > such a hated choice? > > [endquote] > > To keep voters from voting for someone whom they genuinely prefer. What the > public, > including the voters, would like isn't the same as what is most profitable to > those who > > own the media that tell us about "the two choices". Everyone believes that > only they > have the preferences that they have, because that's how it looks in the media. > > Notice that all politicians routinely promise change. That's because they know > > that the public wants change. So the politicians are adamant about change. > They're > mad as hell and they want to do something about it, and give us change. > Amazingly, that > pretense continues to reliably work, every time. > > > You continued: > > OMOV may inspire some - many of us have to argue against it having > value because we back, as better, methods this thought argues about - > such as Condorcet, Score, and even IRV. > > [endquote] > > OMOV is easily answered by pointing out that Approval let's everyone rate each > candidate as approved or unapproved. > > You continued: > > Part of the chicken dilemma difficulty is that it depends on what some > > voters will do without any compulsion, and what others will do after > making promises to cooperate > > [endquote] > > The chicken dilemma is very difficult to get rid of. I don't know of anyone > proposing a FBC-complying method that really gets rid of that problem. > > The methods that I call "defection-resistant" do much to alleviate that > problem, > but don't eliminate it. They just push it to a secondary level, where > defection strategy is more > complicated and counterintuitive, and therefore less likely to be used. > > A party whose members might defect by not support your party in Approval > isn't likely > to engage in the Machiavellianly bizarre strategy of conditionally approving > Democrats, > Republicans, Libertarians and Nazis in order to gain some mutual conditional > approvals. Not > > if ethical reputation counts for anything. > > I've said that methods that don't get rid of that problem don't significantly > improve on ordinary Approval. All that can be said for the > defection-resistant methods > > is that they might improve a little on Approval, in a way. > > In other words, the improvement is questionable at best. And, for most > methods trying > to improve on Approval, the improvement is outright illusory. > > > I'd say that Approval can't be improved on, other than questionably or > doubtfully. > > I'd counter that SODA is a clear improvement for those who want to delegate, and no worse for those who don't. Jameson > > > Mike Ossipoff > > > > 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] My Quora answer on "What is the root problem in US politics?" [Self-promotion]
http://www.quora.com/U-S-Politics/What-is-the-root-problem-in-US-politics/answer/Jameson-Quinn All-in-all, I find that Quora is a pretty good place to discuss things on the net. I may be fooling myself and just preaching to the choir, but I don't think so. It seems to me that reasonable discussion there can gain followers and change minds, which is certainly more than you can say about much of the internet. So I'd love it if there were more overlap between EM and Quora. Jameson ps. For those who don't like this kind of message: I'll continue to use the [self-promotion] tag if I do something like this again in the future, so you can set your spam filters now. Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
