At 10:41 AM 9/28/2007, Howard Swerdfeger wrote: >Not peer review, but Ka ping yee of... >http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/ >has run sum simulations of election systems in 2d space >and it shows quite a few problems with IRV. >these guys (warren smith) also have some "Yee" diagrams >http://rangevoting.org/IEVS/Pictures.html >these show behaviour under different elections. > > >In General IRV is bad at ties and near tie elections...in general
Right. But the zealous guardians of the IRV Official Line have specifically objected to Yee as biased and self-published, and to Warren Smith .... don't even mention him, the banshees make such piercing noises that we would not be able to sleep for a week. Right now, the easiest path to get such information into the article, I think, is through Pro and Con arguments. My plan is to rearrange the article into an "Arguments" section that would examine each claim (made by either side, pro or con) in turn. Pro and Con argument sections, I've seen many time, do not allow direct comparison of arguments. The question of certainty regarding fact is one which has long been an interest to me. People think that certainty is elusive or impossible, but actually, it's not all that difficult. The "encyclopedic" writer writes with certainty, if he or she is being thorough and very careful. If you source a statement, and you don't claim that the statement is true, but your source actually makes that statement, you are writing the truth, period. That's not the end of the story, for there is also the question of balance, and Wikipedia articles also require, if they can get it!, balance. It is not enough to collect a bunch of pro arguments, even if all sourced and properly qualified, while neglecting con arguments, or vice versa. It is easy to lie with the truth, and, in fact, it is the most successful form of lying, for lying through false statements is much more easily exposed. (It can still be difficult, but that's another story.) It will take time, but I consider the IRV article to be politically quite important, and worthy of serious attention at this time. Google "Instant Runoff Voting," and, indeed a whole serious of topics, and what is at the top? Wikipedia. Many people are going to take their information from that article. We serve the public, and the public interest, and the interest of better elections in the future, by acting to ensure that the article is fair and balanced. If people are going to adopt IRV, I think they should do so with eyes wide open, not dreaming that it will balance their checkbook and put a cherry on every sundae. And, of course. "reduce negative campaigning." It's been really beautiful to watch these night-dwellers squirm when their beautiful propaganda piece is being transformed into something more accurately informative. They really can't stand the truth! And it's showing. And, if they knew it, they wouldn't be doing what they are doing, for they are essentially tarring their own cause. It looks pretty suspicious when you actively try to suppress dissent, and the beautiful thing about Wikipedia is that every edit is recorded and the author identified. While these people are using the ability to edit "anonymously" and through sock puppets or meat puppets to large effect, I don't think they realize just how visible they are. And it will come out. A cause that must resort to deception is a lost cause. And if anyone thinks my edits to the article have been wrong, or unfair, or biased, well, it wouldn't be surprising at least some of the time. That's the Wikipedia process, but I am actively participating in the attempt to find consensus, and that's what counts. I'm being pretty careful, though. I have *not* been attacking IRV, just attacking propaganda, spin, and just plain false claims. It's amazing what happens when one actually follows some of the sources used to back up claims. Sometimes what is in the sources is the opposite of what the claim implied. FairVote is usually more sophisticated than simple false claims, though it may be turning out that some of the historical information they have provided about Bucklin, which we already knew was so heavily spun that you could weave a coat with it, is also false. Usually what they do is to spin and exaggerate with sometimes subtle shifts of language. The whole Robert's Rules issue is a very good example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Instant-runoff_voting#Robert.27s_Rules_of_Order_in_Introductory_Section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Instant-runoff_voting#Continuing_problem_with_Introduction.2C_Robert.27s_Rules Does Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised, "recommend" "Instant Runoff Voting"? FairVote would certainly want us to think that. What is the source for the claim. Is it Robert's Rules of Order? No. Actually not. The source is .... FairVote. Is the quotation taken out of context? Well, it could be, but in this case it appears that it is not. Rather, the claim is what one can come up with, easily, if one does not very carefully read what is there. Most people who are not election experts, in fact, would miss the major problem, and, irony of ironies, it is over an issue that impacts a major Pro-IRV claim. Robert's Rules dislikes any election being won by a plurality, and the default is that it can't happen. If the bylaws are silent on it, no officer can be elected without the consent of a majority of those voting. And, guess what? The rules are explicit that a "majority" means a majority of all those who have cast a ballot containing a valid vote for an eligible candidate. And such a vote is not "invalidated" by being cast for the wrong candidate, not one of the top two in the last round of an IRV election. There is actually a series of problems with the claim that "Roberts Rules recommends IRV." The source for the claim is another Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_methods_in_Robert%27s_Rules_of_Order Which refers to RONR as a source, and is accurate as far as I've noticed, but then sources as well: <http://www.fairvote.org/?page=1797>Robert's Rules of Order on Instant Runoff Voting, Fairvote. Notice the title. FairVote wants to frame the discussion in the rules as being about "Instant Runoff Voting." That's not what RONR calls what it describes. And it is not exactly "recommending" what it does describe. It is giving an example of a preferential voting method, and it is clear that there are others, and it is not recommending one over another. Nor is it really recommending preferential voting, for it explicitly describes the serious problems with it, the possible failure to find a compromise candidate. It prefers election by majority vote, obtained by repeated balloting, which, in fact, properly done, can discover a Condorcet winner (at least "election by motion," which is a default method under Robert's Rules, will do this.) The Wikipedia article on Voting Methods in RRO is pretty good, and accurate. I have edited the link above to replace, in the displayed text, "on Preferential Voting." I certainly won't be surprised if someone squawks. I *want* them to squawk. When the bird squawks, the hawks know where they are. ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
