[EM] Reply to a few IRV arguments

I'm sorry, I can't find the message that I'm replying to. It was by an apparent IRV advocate. He said that claims about IRV's problems are "theoretical" or "hypothetical", and have never been observed. Of course that isn't true. In Australia, where IRV has been in use for a long time, various

[EM] Tentative replacement for CD

Ok, thanks for pointing that out, Chris. It's a good thing that I said that the new CD was tentative. How about this change?: CD's requirement now is merely that B doesn't win. That's more in the spirit of the ABE, which is about B voters stealing the election by defection. With that change

[EM] ER-IRV(whole) fails FBC (was "no subject")

Ok, AIRV fails FBC. That isn't such bad news, because I've just abandoned AIRV because it probably fails One Candidate Mutuality (1CM), which is met by ABucklin and DP. In AIRV, if all of a majority rank x, but they rank hir barely above their unranked, x can get eliminated early-on. If no one

Re: [EM] a response to Kristofer Munsterhjelm re: Fuzzy Options.

On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote: > JQ:You keep saying "I'm middlebrow, I think IRV would work OK, because the > parties would shift to wherever they had to be." You could use exactly the > same argument to support plurality. dlw:As a matter of fact, I believe that the US was

[EM] UP is MMC+(=whole). Use of protection-levels. SDSC, SFC.

There should be brief names for Bucklin (= whole simultaneous) and IRV(= whole). I suggests ABucklin and AIRV ("A" for "Approval"), or BucklinA and IRVA. UP is met by MMC-complying methods with the (= whole) specification. Methods allowing equal ranking, with a whole vote to everyone you ran

Re: [EM] a response to Kristofer Munsterhjelm re: Fuzzy Options.

You keep saying "I'm middlebrow, I think IRV would work OK, because the parties would shift to wherever they had to be." You could use exactly the same argument to support plurality. Yet we know that under plurality, the two-party domination is such that the parties get stuck and/or bought, and sig

Re: [EM] a response to Kristofer Munsterhjelm re: Fuzzy Options.

> > >>> >> dlw: Well, 1. IRV3 doesn't let folks rank all of the options and so it >> hopefully has more quality control on which options are ranked. >> 2. by not always giving us the "center", it does permit learning about >> the different viewpoints. Remember, since I'm middle-brow, I don't put a

Re: [EM] Response to Kristofer Musterhjelm

On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote: > >> dlw: too much pluralism can make it hard to make needed changes. You >> need leadership to make changes. If the ruling coalition shifts often then >> it's hard to follow through with changes. >> > > JQ:That's a feature of parliamentary s

Re: [EM] a response to Kristofer Munsterhjelm re: Fuzzy Options.

2011/11/3 David L Wetzell > > On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 9:14 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm < > km_el...@lavabit.com> wrote: > >> David L Wetzell wrote: >> >> And I don't think the Condorcet criterion is /that important/, as I >>> think in political elections, our options are inherently fuzzy options a

Re: [EM] a response to JQ on IRV3/AV3

2011/11/3 David L Wetzell > > >>> Or the Progs and Dems could realize, hey, maybe we can become the two >>> dominant parties here by not doing that sort of thing... >>> >> >> Not a motivation for the Dems, who already are. >> > > Most Dems, possibly not their leaders, > A very important qualific

Re: [EM] Response to Kristofer Musterhjelm

> > > dlw: too much pluralism can make it hard to make needed changes. You need > leadership to make changes. If the ruling coalition shifts often then it's > hard to follow through with changes. > That's a feature of parliamentary systems. The US has a directly-elected president, and also lacks

[EM] a response to Kristofer Munsterhjelm re: Fuzzy Options.

On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 9:14 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote: > David L Wetzell wrote: > > And I don't think the Condorcet criterion is /that important/, as I think >> in political elections, our options are inherently fuzzy options and so all >> of our rankings are prone to be ad hoc. >> > > If

Re: [EM] A design flaw in the electoral system

On Nov 3, 2011, at 9:17 AM, Fred Gohlke wrote: > re: "Why the lack of public participation?" > > Our elections lack public participation because the election methods extant > do not allow, much less encourage, public participation in the selection of > candidates for public office or public del

Re: [EM] A design flaw in the electoral system

Good Morning, Michael re: "Why the lack of public participation?" Our elections lack public participation because the election methods extant do not allow, much less encourage, public participation in the selection of candidates for public office or public deliberation on public issues. Inst

[EM] a response to JQ on IRV3/AV3

> >> Or the Progs and Dems could realize, hey, maybe we can become the two >> dominant parties here by not doing that sort of thing... >> > > Not a motivation for the Dems, who already are. > Most Dems, possibly not their leaders, would prefer to have the other major party be Progs than the curren

[EM] Response to Kristofer Musterhjelm

> > >> dlw: IRV3 hardly changes nothing. It doesn't by itself change the >> tendency for there to be two major parties, but I take issue with the view >> that that has to be changed. >> In my explanation of Strategic Election Reform, I outline my vision of a >> contested duopoly with 2 major parti

Re: [EM] a response to Andy J.

David L Wetzell wrote: And I don't think the Condorcet criterion is /that important/, as I think in political elections, our options are inherently fuzzy options and so all of our rankings are prone to be ad hoc. If opinions are fuzzy, that means that the voters' true distribution within p

Re: [EM] hello from DLW of "A New Kind of Party":long time electoral reform enthusiast/iconoclast-wannabe...

David L Wetzell wrote: Hello Walabio, et al. On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 4:41 AM, ⸘Ŭalabio‽ > wrote: > 6. I advocate for FairVote's IRV3. I hate to break this to you, But FairVote.Org is Astroturf. The Republicrats and Democans know that

[EM] Tentative replacement for CD

Mike, Your new suggested criterion is failed by anything that meets both of the Plurality and Minimal Defense criteria. 27: A>B 24: B (sincere might be B>A) 49: C Together they say that B must win here, but your suggested criterion says that B can do no better than tie with A, The only 2