Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

Thanks for worthy comments, but I disagree a bit: We need single-member districts, for we have offices that fit, such as mayor and governor. We need to ban plurality. While plurality is enough on a good day, most any election can have bad days. I will promote Condorcet (see

Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

On 12/2/11 11:46 AM, David L Wetzell wrote: dlw: Deep down, I am skeptical of whether a multi-party system improves things that much or would do so in my country. RBJ:i am thoroughly convinced that a multi-party (and viable independent) system improves things over the

Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 7:31 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote: > We're still hitting the same disagreements. I say "look at the others", > you say "this time it'll be different", I say "Condorcet >> IRV", you say > marketing differences are great while in practice, there's no difference > between

[EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

> > > > -- Forwarded message -- > From: robert bristow-johnson > To: election-methods@lists.electorama.com > Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 22:18:32 -0500 > Subject: Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage. > On 12/1/11 5:14 PM, David L Wetzell wrote

Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

We're still hitting the same disagreements. I say "look at the others", you say "this time it'll be different", I say "Condorcet >> IRV", you say marketing differences are great while in practice, there's no difference between Condorcet and IRV large enough to make a difference. Thus, let me d

Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

This thread now has 50 messages, back-and-forth. I'll try to make this my last word on the subject. Basically, the bottom line for me is that I trust real evidence more than I trust theory, but I need to find room to take hopeful action. That's not a matter of building an elaborate model of realit

Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

On 12/1/11 11:33 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote: Trying one more time to start a sales pitch for switching from IRV to Condorcet. well regarding me, you're preaching to the choir. -- r b-j r...@audioimagination.com "Imagination is more important than knowledge." Election-Met

Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

Trying one more time to start a sales pitch for switching from IRV to Condorcet. On Dec 1, 2011, at 10:18 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote: On 12/1/11 5:14 PM, David L Wetzell wrote: KM:If the cost of campaigning is high enough that only the two major parties can play the game, then mo

Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

On 12/1/11 5:14 PM, David L Wetzell wrote: KM:If the cost of campaigning is high enough that only the two major parties can play the game, then money (what you call $peech) will still have serious influence. dlw:My understanding/political theory is that $peech is inevitable and

Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

Condorcet is easy for voters to move to for it is a strong, but simple, step up from FPTP and: 1. Ranking means ability indicate order of varying desires of liking candidates. 2. But ranking is much less of a task than Score's rating where you have to calculate the difference in value of A

Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

> > > If FairVote continues on its marketing of IRV and we do nothing, yes, IRV > is more likely to be adopted than Condorcet, at least in the short term. > > I'd like to expand on Kristofer's point just a bit. The fact is, it's not true that we're going to do nothing. I see basically 3 possibiliti

Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

David L Wetzell wrote: KM:I think this is where we differ, really. On a scale from 0 to 1, you think their relative merit is something like: 0: Plurality 0.7: IRV3/AV3 0.72: Condorcet, MJ, etc while I think it's something like: 0: Plurality 0.25: IRV

Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

David L Wetzell wrote: The two major-party equilibrium would be centered around the de facto center. But positioning yourself around the de facto center is dangerous in IRV. You might get center-squeezed unless either you or your voters start using strategic lesser-e

Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

On 27.11.2011, at 8.05, matt welland wrote: > On Sat, 2011-11-26 at 22:31 -0500, robert bristow-johnson wrote: >> On 11/26/11 6:58 PM, matt welland wrote: > >>> Also, do folks generally see approval as better than or worse than IRV? >> they don't know anything about Approval (or Score or Borda or

Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

2011/11/27 matt welland > On Sat, 2011-11-26 at 22:31 -0500, robert bristow-johnson wrote: > > On 11/26/11 6:58 PM, matt welland wrote: > > > > Also, do folks generally see approval as better than or worse than IRV? > > they don't know anything about Approval (or Score or Borda or Bucklin or > >

Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

matt welland wrote: On Sat, 2011-11-26 at 22:31 -0500, robert bristow-johnson wrote: On 11/26/11 6:58 PM, matt welland wrote: Also, do folks generally see approval as better than or worse than IRV? they don't know anything about Approval (or Score or Borda or Bucklin or Condorcet) despite so

Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

On Sat, 2011-11-26 at 22:31 -0500, robert bristow-johnson wrote: > On 11/26/11 6:58 PM, matt welland wrote: > > Also, do folks generally see approval as better than or worse than IRV? > they don't know anything about Approval (or Score or Borda or Bucklin or > Condorcet) despite some effort by me

Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

Here's I think the crux of your mistake: > We can't say it's just a matter of opinion, cuz it's probably not such, > I don't want to get too far into philosophical issues here, but I think that in one sense we can basically take it for granted that it's not such: that, in the proverbial phrase, G

Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

> > Both Score and Approval are non-starters, because of the nature of the > ballot. but a ranked ballot is not a non-starter, Score and Approval are not the only rated systems. I favor a rated ballot - both more information and, if you can avoid the strategic burden, actually easier for the vot

Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

On 11/26/11 6:58 PM, matt welland wrote: On Sat, 2011-11-26 at 16:56 -0500, robert bristow-johnson wrote: the counterexample, again, is Burlington Vermont. Dems haven't sat in the mayor's chair for decades. Is this due to a split of the liberal vote by progressives or other liberal blocs? Or i

Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

On Sat, 2011-11-26 at 16:56 -0500, robert bristow-johnson wrote: > On 11/26/11 4:08 PM, David L Wetzell wrote: > > > the counterexample, again, is Burlington Vermont. Dems haven't sat in > the mayor's chair for decades. Is this due to a split of the liberal vote by progressives or other liberal

Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

On 11/26/11 4:08 PM, David L Wetzell wrote: The two major-party equilibrium would be centered around the de facto center. But positioning yourself around the de facto center is dangerous in IRV. You might get center-squeezed unless either you or your voters start

Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

> > >> dlw: 1. IRV is effectively the leading contender to replace FPTP in the >> US. (We agree on this, even if we don't like it, right?) >> 2. If you're going to attack IRV then you got to have an alternative >> (singular) to replace it with. 4 potential replacements do not cut it. In >> the US

Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

> > >> >> The two major-party equilibrium would be centered around the de facto >> center. >> > > But positioning yourself around the de facto center is dangerous in IRV. > You might get center-squeezed unless either you or your voters start using > strategic lesser-evil logic - the same sort of lo

Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

Note that Majority Judgment, Range, and even arguably Approval are independent of irrelevant alternatives. Majority Judgment is the clearest; it passes IIA even with simple zero-information strategy. (That is to say, with MJ it is reasonable to vote honestly on an absolute scale, unlike Range or Ap

Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

robert bristow-johnson wrote: what do you mean: "weight"? rankings are just rankings. if a voter ranks Candidate A above Candidate B (independent of what the absolute rank values are), all that means is that this voter would vote for A if it were a simple two-candidate race with B. and all

Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

istow-johnson mailto:r...@audioimagination.com>> To: election-methods@lists.electorama.com <mailto:election-methods@lists.electorama.com> Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 15:50:02 -0500 Subject: Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage. On 11/24/11 2:20 PM, Davi

Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

David L Wetzell wrote: On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Jameson Quinn > wrote: What kind of evidence would convince you to change your mind about IRV? How about on IRV3/AV3 resolving most of IRV's problems? (I believe that using 3-slot+unapproved ba

Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

David L Wetzell wrote: On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Jameson Quinn > wrote: How? By people returning to lesser-evil voting, but possibly between progressives and democrats? That's not a solution in my book. The two major-party equilibrium would b

Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

On Nov 24, 2011, at 3:50 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote: On 11/24/11 2:20 PM, David L Wetzell wrote: Let me start off by saying that I'm thankful for this list-serve of people passionate about electoral reform and that you put together a working consensus statement. I'm trying to work it s

Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote: > >> You can't end FPTP without following its logic and that entails the >> sort of activism mastered by FairVote >> >> And it's going to get easier to push for electoral reforms in the coming >> year thanks to #OWS >> > > #OWS em

Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

> > > You can't end FPTP without following its logic and that entails the > sort of activism mastered by FairVote > > And it's going to get easier to push for electoral reforms in the coming > year thanks to #OWS > #OWS embraces consensus logic, the polar opposite of plurality logic.

Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote: > I think it would be great if we could unite all the activists, theorists, > and academics behind a single plan for system-wide election reform. I would > get behind such a plan in a heartbeat, even if I thought it was flawed in > its details.

Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

I think it would be great if we could unite all the activists, theorists, and academics behind a single plan for system-wide election reform. I would get behind such a plan in a heartbeat, even if I thought it was flawed in its details. But that is, demonstrably, not happening. David, you do not

Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

On 11/24/11 2:20 PM, David L Wetzell wrote: Let me start off by saying that I'm thankful for this list-serve of people passionate about electoral reform and that you put together a working consensus statement. I'm trying to work it some more... My belief is that the US's system makes it neces

Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

Let me start off by saying that I'm thankful for this list-serve of people passionate about electoral reform and that you put together a working consensus statement. I'm trying to work it some more... My belief is that the US's system makes it necessary to frame electoral reform simply and to lim

Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

I absolutely agree. We should not waste energy fighting over which election system is the ideal. For instance, if we are given the opportunity to sign a statement which clearly states some of the problems with the current system and supports several solutions we believe would help, including giving

Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

The variations in "x", particularly among low-info voters as we predominantly have in the USA, are too small to put a lot of time/energy into trying to get it perfect. It just lowers the p because of the proliferation of election rules trying to become numero uno. But how else do we make "more lo

Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

> >> If I've read you correctly here, it seems to me that you should sign the >> statement. You agree with everything it says, even if you wish it said some >> other things. And if you're truly being open-minded about this, you will >> want to avoid the circular logic involved in not signing. ("I w

Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 4:02 AM, Jameson Quinn wrote: > So, to answer the question: the kind of evidence which would convince you > to support other methods instead of/in addition to IRV, would be evidence > that one or more of them are likely to be implemented in the US? dlw: I believe that |xi

Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

So, to answer the question: the kind of evidence which would convince you to support other methods instead of/in addition to IRV, would be evidence that one or more of them are likely to be implemented in the US? If I've read you correctly here, it seems to me that you should sign the statement. Y

Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

On 11/22/11 4:57 PM, David L Wetzell wrote: Aye, and that still looks better than a two-stage with a 40% cutoff(what's in place now) or FPTP. If they had stuck with IRV in Burlington, the perceived flaws would have worked themselves out. In the US, three-way close races are not common and can be

Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote: > What kind of evidence would convince you to change your mind about IRV? > How about on IRV3/AV3 resolving most of IRV's problems? (I believe that > using 3-slot+unapproved ballots and implicit approval to run > approval/runoff, which I guess

Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

On 11/22/2011 1:03 PM, David L Wetzell wrote: dlw: All analysis shows that the perceived problems with IRV are seriously attenuated with only 3 candidates. This is why it's a shame not to add IRV3/AV3 to the list of endorsed methods, since it always uses IRV with only 3 candidates and addresses

Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

What kind of evidence would convince you to change your mind about IRV? How about on IRV3/AV3 resolving most of IRV's problems? (I believe that using 3-slot+unapproved ballots and implicit approval to run approval/runoff, which I guess in your notation is IRV3/AV2, would, but don't agree that IRV3/

Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote: > > > 2011/11/22 David L Wetzell > >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Jameson Quinn >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> 2011/11/22 David L Wetzell >>> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Jameson Quinn >>> > wrote: > > >>

Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

2011/11/22 David L Wetzell > > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote: > >> >> >> 2011/11/22 David L Wetzell >> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Jameson Quinn >>> wrote: >>> 2011/11/22 David L Wetzell > Aye, and that still looks better than a

Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote: > > > 2011/11/22 David L Wetzell > >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Jameson Quinn >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> 2011/11/22 David L Wetzell >>> Aye, and that still looks better than a two-stage with a 40% cutoff(what's in place

Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

2011/11/22 David L Wetzell > > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote: > >> >> >> 2011/11/22 David L Wetzell >> >>> Aye, and that still looks better than a two-stage with a 40% >>> cutoff(what's in place now) or FPTP. >> >> >> Yes. >> >> >>> If they had stuck with IRV in Burlingt

Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote: > > > 2011/11/22 David L Wetzell > >> Aye, and that still looks better than a two-stage with a 40% >> cutoff(what's in place now) or FPTP. > > > Yes. > > >> If they had stuck with IRV in Burlington, the perceived flaws would have >> worked the

Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

2011/11/22 David L Wetzell > Aye, and that still looks better than a two-stage with a 40% cutoff(what's > in place now) or FPTP. Yes. > If they had stuck with IRV in Burlington, the perceived flaws would have > worked themselves out. > How? By people returning to lesser-evil voting, but poss

Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

Aye, and that still looks better than a two-stage with a 40% cutoff(what's in place now) or FPTP. If they had stuck with IRV in Burlington, the perceived flaws would have worked themselves out. In the US, three-way close races are not common and can be mitigated in other ways, such as are already a

Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

> > > dlw: All analysis shows that the perceived problems with IRV are seriously > attenuated with only 3 candidates. > The primary anti-IRV example people use is Burlington, with only 3 major candidates. Jameson Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

-- Forwarded message -- From: Richard Fobes To: election-meth...@electorama.com Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 11:53:06 -0800 Subject: Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage. On 11/22/2011 9:38 AM, David L Wetzell wrote: So how about it? Can we try to rewrite the consensus

Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

David L Wetzell wrote: http://politeaparty.blogspot.com/2011/11/free-and-fair-elections-and-their.html They're trying to end the use of IRV in SF. Obviously, they're concerned about non-monotonicity or that the Condorcet candidate is not guaranteed... I'm still writing my reply to the long ma

Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

On 11/22/2011 9:38 AM, David L Wetzell wrote: > So how about it? Can we try to rewrite the consensus statement to > include an endorsement of IRV3/AV3 and to make it more marketable to > #OWS and other folks? IRV, and variations of it, are based on the mistaken belief that the candidate with th

[EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

http://politeaparty.blogspot.com/2011/11/free-and-fair-elections-and-their.html They're trying to end the use of IRV in SF. Obviously, they're concerned about non-monotonicity or that the Condorcet candidate is not guaranteed... I think that if IRV3/AV3 were used instead, it would be easier to ex