> >Rob Lanphier re the Center for Range Voting: >If you had the kind of backing that CVD has, I might believe you. However, in terms of popular voting reforms, only CVD can make the claim that they've got the political organization and the momentum to follow through right now. CAV/AAV is making encouraging progress, but it's nowhere close to CVD in raw political power, as near as I can tell. That's not to say that I think the CVD is right (I don't; I think they're dead wrong). Only that CVD is the only one that can credibly throw their clout around the way that you are right now.
--unfortunately, there is a large amount of truth to your remarks here... BUT we have to do something about it since the CVD ("center for voting and democracy," a biased-pro-IRV group) are "dead wrong" as you put it. Now the angle we can exploit, is the fact, supported by indisputable data up the wazoo, that IRV (which the CVD is pushing) just leads to more 2-party domination. And the fact (also supported by data VERY clearly) that range voting leads to a LOT more votes for third parties than does approval and (even more so) than does plurality. (Cannot really directly compare with ranked ballot methods since no notion of "how many votes you got.") And the fact, that plenty of Condorcet methods will lead to 2-party domination. Adam Tarr on RV-list has been arguing that Condorcet methods that incorporate both of these enhancements: (1) "winning votes" not "margins" and (2) equalities permitted in vote-rankings ("Gore=Nader>Bush=Buchanan") plausibly defeat my arguments the Condorcet methods will lead to 2-party domination. (My arguments had mostly assumed full-rankings with only ">" not "=".) I think Tarr is plausibly right on that, but I also think advanced Condorcet methods are so complicated it may not be impossible to confidently predict what will happen re 2-party dominance. That is an advantage of simple-to-understand methods, whose strategy can be wholy understood, like Range: you can answer such questions with good confidence. (Condorcet optimum voter strategy remains uncharacterized after over 200 years...) OK. What does this tell us? Does it tell us "range is a superior system to all Condorcet systems?" NO! But it DOES tell us, that range is a superior system FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF ALL USA THIRD PARTIES right now and in the forseeable future. Those parties would be insanely suicidal to support either plurality or IRV or approval when they could have range. It might be sensible for them to support Condorcet, but this is a gamble with their life. Also the main voter-objection to range in my poll was its "complexity." That suggests the best Condorcet methods (much more complex) will have a significantly harder time getting implemented, so even if 3rd parties wanted Condorcet, they should realize it is way harder for them to get it - to save their lives soon and with highest chance of success, they need to line up behind range voting. So: the US third parties have to support range, and they will support range if their leaders are brought into contact with the data. OK? with me so far? Now. If we get endorsements form all the third parties for Range Voting, then we immediately have a unified nonegligible force for voting reform, which dwarfs the CVD and is big enough to accomplish, e.g. putting ballot-initiative propositions onto state ballots. CVD is not big enough to do that. OK? You follow? Now, the plan I just said, represents progress. Not only does it represent progress toward range voting, it also represents progress towards approval voting, and towards Condorcet voting, indirectly. Specifically, once a "get range" movement gets going, there will then be a lot of public debate about voting system issues, resulting in more progress towards your stated educational mission, in terms of raw numbers of people exposed to it, than you will ever probably accomplish without my plan, and sooner too. OK? So we are on the same team in a big way - or should be if you'd quit being obstructionist. :) >robla: Convince me that Range Voting is superior to Condorcet, and I'll be an >advocate for Range Voting. I've made a jump once... but I'll be very, very >difficult to >convince. --I probably cannot completely convince you range is superior. I just want to convince you that unifying behind range voting is a hugely good tactical idea including for Condorcet proponents. And I think even you can see range is a huge improvement on what we've got, whereas condorcet will be a small improvement over range (comparatively speaking) if at all. >robla: [accuses WDS of being] "condescending as hell:: Let me paraphrase: >"please continue to discuss whatever silly little things you want to, but oh, by the way, stop actually advocating what you believe in and unite behind what *I* believe in". Let me respond: "ummmm....no". --WDS: I apologize. I did not intend at all to be condescending. Let me be clear. EM's mission of studying and debating every possible voting system and of educating all, is a good idea and I by no means want it to cease, nor do I in any way have a low opinion of that mission. At all. Nor did I ever. However, at the same time, I want to actually get someplace. The right way for us all to get someplace, is to unify behind range voting. Debating forever won't do that. Range voting is very robustly the best among about 30 systems tried including a couple condorcet systems according to my giant comparative Bayesian regret study in 2000. OK, maybe you can attack that. Maybe you can say I did not put in your favorite system or favorite voting strategy. (Some of the systems I am being attacked for, were not even invented at the time I did the study.) Those attacks don't matter: The bottom line is, you should now be convinced range is pretty damn good - even if not the tippy top best among all possible systems ever proposed r that ever will be proposed, it clearly is in the top few percent - as far as quality is concerned, and it does not seem to exhibit any major exploitable weaknesses since it scored top in EVERY one of 144 different parameter settings. Also range is among the best in terms of simplicity. Also range (with single digit scores) can be adopted right now on every voting machine in the USA without any modification necessary. The worst you can say is on some machine types it would be inconvenient. (And this adoptibility is false for IRV & Condorcet.) Also range is TACTICALLY THE BEST in terms of the PLAN of appealing to US 3rd parties!!!! So you have to unify behind range. I'm trying to make it clear as I can. It seems obvious to me, so I am sorry if I seem impatient. We have to act FAST because we need to unify the throd parties, and we need to go for Iowa 08. If you delay a single day, then that delays the whole plan a single day. Delay 6 months, and that may be enough to kill the whole plan. Etc. So yes, I am impatient. So I am telling everybody it is in their best interest, and the USA's best interest, and the world's best interest, to join CRV and its range-promoting mission. And if you think I am being too messianic, or am not competent enough, or am not moneyed enough, etc, then get off your damned butt and do something to improve that problem, instead of just whining about it. You can only do something about that, if you are part of the effort. I can see a two-pronged role developing here where CRV spearheads the drive for range voting, while EM spearheads the ongoing project of debating, theoretically researching, and educating. I am quite certain there are many people more competent than I in many areas - probably many of them on EM - and I would very much like them to participate. Hell, I'd very much like those more competent people to be doing it instead of me, but the problem is, so far I evidently have not been able to rely on such hopes, (since nobody previously founded the CRV... and the CDV is going in the wrong direction...) so I decided to try myself. We are now embryonic. If you get in early that enhances your chance to play a bigger role in all the future. Warren D Smith ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info