Re: [EM] Democracy Chronicles, answers to interview questions
Dear Richard and Adrian, Richard Fobes said: > Below are the questions that editor Adrian Tawfik is inviting us to > answer. Clarifications follow the questions. > > Question 1. Your name and the city and country you work in. Michael Allan, Toronto > Question 2. What is your Company or Organization? independent software engineer > Question 3. Any contact info you wish to give to be published with > article for readers (for example your email or website.) (see sig below) > Question 4. If you have signed the Declaration, is there any additional > information, beyond what's in your signature, that you feel is important > to mention? > > Question 5. If you have not signed the Declaration, why? Unfortunately the proposed reforms do not address what I consider the most important requirements, namely that (a) the elector must actually have a vote, and (b) the vote must have a meaningful effect. > Question 6. Briefly explain what characteristics you think are most > important for a voting method to have? (a) The elector must actually have a vote in the sense of its form and content being under the elector's control at all times, much as one's voice is under one's control, for example. Neither the traditional methods of voting nor the proposed reforms meet this requirement. In both cases the form of the vote is prescribed by force and the vote itself is witheld for long periods. Most crucially it is witheld during those periods in which electoral decisions are made, which is always well before the ballots are printed. (b) The vote must have some meaningful effect in the real world. In particular it ought to afford a reasonable possibility of influencing the outcome of the election. Again, neither the traditional methods nor the proposed reforms meet this requirement. In both cases one's vote has no effect whatsoever on the outcome of the election. > Question 7. What do you think is the most important election reform > needed where you live (either locally or nationally)? Why is this > reform important? I think the most important requirement is (a). Gaining control of the vote would give our electors immediate influence over the elections; that's one thing. In due course, it would also open the possibility of voting on laws and other norms, which would entail efforts at reaching consensus or mutual understanding on the shape of society. With that, we would arrive at the possibility of political freedom. > Question 8. What is your opinion on other aspects of election reform > such as reforming money's role in politics or redistricting > (particularly in the US but very interested as well concerning > election reforms internationally)? In my opinion, if we each possess a vote (a) with an effect (b), then there is little opportunity for money and/or gerrymandering to fill that role. Those forces come into play only because the voter (as such) is absent from the decision process, which again is one that unfolds well before the ballots are printed. -- Michael Allan Toronto, +1 416-699-9528 http://zelea.com/ Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
[EM] Corrected answers posting (Mike Ossipoff)
(Sorry, I neglected to answer question #6. I include #6 in this post) Question 1. Your name and the city and country you work in. I answer: Miami, Florida, U.S. (originally California) Question 2. What is your Company or Organization? I answer: No company or organization, though I've been a regular participant at the Election Methods mailing list, at electowiki. Question 3. Any contact info you wish to give to be published with article for readers (for example your email or website.) I answer postings at the elecion-methods mailing list. The mailing list probably makes its participants' e-mail addresses available. Question 4. If you have signed the Declaration, is there any additional information, beyond what's in your signature, that you feel is important to mention? Question 5. If you have not signed the Declaration, why? My answer to questions 4 and 5: The only reason why I haven't yet signed the declaration is because I'd assumed that it was only for celebrities, dignitaries, academic authorities or other officially recognized authorities. If anyone can sign the declaration, then I intend to sign it as soon as possible. I thoroughly agree with the declaration's main statement: The statement that the currently-used Plurality voting system is either the worst, or nearly the worst possible voting system. It's effectively a points system that (inexplicably) only allows people to give a point to one candidate--forcing millions of voters to give it all away to an un-liked "lesser-evil", giving eachother the false impression that they like that lesser-evil better than their actual favorite(s). That will never happen with Approval. I also thoroughly support the declaration's favorable mention of the five methods that it lists. Though I don't consider IRV to be a good idea, due to voters' seriouls tendency to overcompromise, it would be an alright method were it not for that problem. Of the other four recommended methods, three effectively amount to Approval, my favorite method. The remaining method is an enhancement of Approval. Question 6. Briefly explain what characteristics you think are most important for a voting method to have? My answer: The worst problem of Plurality is that it causes voters to abandon their favorite(s) and vote someone less-liked over their favorite(s). I claim that a method should never give anyone incentive or reason to vote someone else over their favorite. That requirement is called the "Favorite-Betrayal-Criterion" (FBC). One could also regard FBC as standing for "Favorite-Burial-Criterion". Approval meets FBC. In fact, of the 5 methods mentioned in the recommendation, they all meet FBC, with the sole exception of IRV. FBC is the essential necessary criterion for a voting system. Question 7. What do you think is the most important election reform needed where you live (either locally or nationally)? Why is this reform important? My answer: Approval Voting. We need it nationally. Approval doesn't violate 1-person-1-vote, because every voter can give to each candidate an "Approved" or a "Not-Approved" rating. Marking a candidate's name on the ballot gives to him/her an "Approved" rating. The candidate approved by the most people wins. People who now vote for a lesser-evil would be able to approve him/her, but could and would also approve everyone whom they like better, including their favorite. The result: The winner would be someone more genuinely liked than the unliked lesser-evils who win now. People who now vote their favorite would be free to approve only him/her in Approval. Question 8. What is your opinion on other aspects of election reform such as reforming money's role in politics or redistricting (particularly in the US but very interested as well concerning election reforms internationally)? My answer: Approval do much to counteract the effect of contribution-bought advertising, when the election-results show how liked the candidates really are. The media and the advertising buyers would no longer be able to deceive voters about that. But I suggest that, ideally, all candidates and parties should receive media exposure, including airtime, etc., in proportion to their popularity, as measured by signatures or vote-totals. The media-share of the now-under-advertised candidates would of course start out small, but it would begin increasing, even with a small share of media time. It would soon reach its rightful equilibrium value, as people started hearing other opinions and proposals, for the first time. Mike Ossipoff Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
[EM] My answers to the questions (Mike Ossipoff)
Question 1. Your name and the city and country you work in. I answer: Miami, Florida, U.S. (originally California) Question 2. What is your Company or Organization? I answer: No company or organization, though I've been a regular participant at the Election Methods mailing list, at electowiki. Question 3. Any contact info you wish to give to be published with article for readers (for example your email or website.) I answer postings at the elecion-methods mailing list. The mailing list probably makes its participants' e-mail addresses available. Question 4. If you have signed the Declaration, is there any additional information, beyond what's in your signature, that you feel is important to mention? Question 5. If you have not signed the Declaration, why? My answer to questions 4 and 5: The only reason why I haven't yet signed the declaration is because I'd assumed that it was only for celebrities, dignitaries, academic authorities or other officially recognized authorities. If anyone can sign the declaration, then I intend to sign it as soon as possible. I thoroughly agree with the declaration's main statement: The statement that the currently-used Plurality voting system is either the worst, or nearly the worst possible voting system. It's effectively a points system that (inexplicably) only allows people to give a point to one candidate--forcing millions of voters to give it all away to an un-liked "lesser-evil", giving eachother the false impression that they like that lesser-evil better than their actual favorite(s). That will never happen with Approval. I also thoroughly support the declaration's favorable mention of the five methods that it lists. Though I don't consider IRV to be a good idea, due to voters' seriouls tendency to overcompromise, it would be an alright method were it not for that problem. Of the other four recommended methods, three effectively amount to Approval, my favorite method. The remaining method is an enhancement of Approval. Question 6. Briefly explain what characteristics you think are most important for a voting method to have? Question 7. What do you think is the most important election reform needed where you live (either locally or nationally)? Why is this reform important? My answer: Approval Voting. We need it nationally. Approval doesn't violate 1-person-1-vote, because every voter can give to each candidate an "Approved" or a "Not-Approved" rating. Marking a candidate's name on the ballot gives to him/her an "Approved" rating. The candidate approved by the most people wins. People who now vote for a lesser-evil would be able to approve him/her, but could and would also approve everyone whom they like better, including their favorite. The result: The winner would be someone more genuinely liked than the unliked lesser-evils who win now. People who now vote their favorite would be free to approve only him/her in Approval. Question 8. What is your opinion on other aspects of election reform such as reforming money's role in politics or redistricting (particularly in the US but very interested as well concerning election reforms internationally)? My answer: Approval do much to counteract the effect of contribution-bought advertising, when the election-results show how liked the candidates really are. The media and the advertising buyers would no longer be able to deceive voters about that. But I suggest that, ideally, all candidates and parties should receive media exposure, including airtime, etc., in proportion to their popularity, as measured by signatures or vote-totals. The media-share of the now-under-advertised candidates would of course start out small, but it would begin increasing, even with a small share of media time. It would soon reach its rightful equilibrium value, as people started hearing other opinions and proposals, for the first time. Mike Ossipoff Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
[EM] Who can sign the declaration?
The only reason why I haven't signed the declaration is because I've assumed that it's only for celebrities, dignitaries and offically-annointed authorities. is that so? If anyone can sign the declaration, then I'd like to. So, my 2nd question in this post is: If anyone can sign the declaration, then how does one sign it. Where does one e-mail to, or what website does one go to? The declaration, as I remember, favorably mentions or recommends 5 methods (with the understanding that there could be other good ones): Approval Range or Score Voting Majority Judgement (median point totals) SODA (simple optionally delegated Approval) IRV The 1st four of those really effectively amount to Approval, differently-implemented, or with an enhancement. IRV would be a perfectly ok method if voters weren't so timid and giveaway-resigned (but they are). So that set of recommendations is a quite good one, and I thoroughly support the declaration. So, can just anyone sign it, without being an officially-recognized authority, celebrity or dignitary? And, if so, how does one sign it? Mike Ossipoff Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Question about Schulze beatpath method
Hallo,
I rewrote section 5 ("Tie-Breaking") of my paper,
so that it is now more in accordance with the
other parts of my paper:
http://m-schulze.webhop.net/schulze1.pdf
Markus Schulze
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Democracy Chronicles, answers to interview questions
2012/4/5 Richard Fobes > Great news: The online newspaper named "Democracy Chronicles" wants to > write an article about our "Declaration of Election-Method Reform > Advocates"! > > The article also will cover what goes on in this election-method forum. > > Below are the questions that editor Adrian Tawfik is inviting us to > answer. Clarifications follow the questions. > > Question 1. Your name and the city and country you work in. > My name is Jameson Quinn. I live in Guatemala City, Guatemala; but as a US expat, I also maintain an interest in politics in the San Francisco Bay Area, where I grew up. > > Question 2. What is your Company or Organization? > I am a freelance web programmer (python, javascript, etc.) > > Question 3. Any contact info you wish to give to be published with > article for readers (for example your email or website.) > My email is my firstname.lastn...@gmail.com. I also tweet on voting-related topics as bettercount_us and am developing a voting website (not yet live) for http://bettercount.us. > > Question 4. If you have signed the Declaration, is there any additional > information, beyond what's in your signature, that you feel is important to > mention? > I was the first person who instigated the declaration and was one of its principal authors. I had four principal goals: 1. Foment more-effective cooperation between advocates of different election method reforms. 2. Provide an "unbiased" (or at least nonsectarian) source for those unversed in abstruse details of election methods to understand the consensus of the field, and thus refute specious arguments against reform. 3. Move outside the "usual suspects"; contact people who don't habitually participate in internet discussions of voting methods, and join "our" voices to "theirs". 4. Create news. Give a reason for people to talk about voting reform. > > Question 5. If you have not signed the Declaration, why? > > Question 6. Briefly explain what characteristics you think are most > important for a voting method to have? > I believe that voting should be merely one element of democratic participation, and that the job of an election system is to make it so voting can be integrated effectively with other forms of organization and activism. So a good voting method should be appealing, should give good (high-utility) results, and should tend to allow honest voting as much as possible. Currently my favorite voting methods from this perspective are Majority Judgment (MJ) and Simple Optionally-Delegated Approval (SODA). I also think that approval voting is a key first step to reform, and a basis for working together. > > Question 7. What do you think is the most important election reform needed > where you live (either locally or nationally)? Why is this reform > important? > In Guatemala, there is a party list system for congress, yet the parties are essentially personal fiefdoms with little continuity from one election to another or ideological coherence, and almost no internal democracy. Thus, the most important reform would be to give citizens power over the internal party dynamics, for instance by moving from closed party list to open party list. In California: I believe that approval voting at the municipal level is the way to build awareness and support for voting reform. I also feel that removing supermajority requirements such as the 2/3 requirement for most state budget issues and the filibuster in the US senate is needed for democracy. > Question 8. What is your opinion on other aspects of election reform such > as reforming money's role in politics or redistricting (particularly in the > US but very interested as well concerning election reforms internationally)? > I believe that it is important to build strong alliances between voting reform activists and activists for these reforms. That's because these are both important reforms in their own right, and also "gateway drugs" towards voting reform activism. That is, their importance is more obvious to naive voter, but as such voters understand the systemic issues, they are led to embrace voting reform as well. (Also, you forgot voting rights issues such as same-day registration or fighting onerous ID requirements; although these issues have a partisan tinge in the US today, they should rightly be nonpartisan issues of democracy.) > > Clarifications: > > * Please change the subject heading if you are writing something other > than your answers to these questions. > > * This article is about our Declaration, and about the election-method > reform concepts you think are the most important. If you want to propose > an article about a different topic, I'm sure that Adrian would be happy to > consider it. > > * Please remember, as stated in the Declaration, that our enemy is > plurality voting (or First Past The Post, or the single-mark ballot), not > instant-runoff voting, and not the supporters of methods you don't like. > For example, consider
