At 02:28 AM 1/21/2010, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
On Jan 20, 2010, at 12:04 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 12:52 AM 1/18/2010, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
yes, it's debatable and, since there are 3 different methods all
lifting up different declared winners, it's subjective.
Well, it's subjective without preference strength information.
the debate *might* go into the direct if whatever "preference
strength information" is subjective or not.
Once again, narrow interpretation believing that it trumps broader
interpretation.
"preference strength information" was here this referring to one of
two possibilities:
Expressed preference strength. Only certain ballots allow this, but
if it is allowed, this information can be objectively used. Is the
information "subjective." Yes, in the sense that it represents a
subjective judgment by the voters, but isn't that what all votes are?
The *analysis* can be objective. Since we were discussing various
methods of analyzing preference information provided on ballots, we
are talking about analysis, not the individual voter process.
Real preference strength. This can generally only be used in judging
voting systems in simulations, where the preference strength is
assumed, typically using models of voter preference, varied randomly
according to some sensible distribution. There are possibilities
where real preference strength can be measured, typically by setting
up some cost to voting. A very relevant example is the cost of
actually voting, the cost of turnout. If voters have low preference
strength, they are less likely to turn out. Therefore turnout is a
factor which indicates preference strength in real elections. We know
that when voters have a high preference strength between two
candidates, and there is a special cost to turnout, as in a special
election or special runoff, voters turn out in unusual numbers. There
are other proposed ways of increasing the cost of voting, most
particularly the Clarke tax or variations on that model. This isn't
the place to explore them, but only to note that preference strength
was often neglected in developing and studying voting systems, on the
bogus argument that it could not be measured or accurately expressed.
That was a narrow understanding, substantially incorrect and even to
the extent it was correct, it was misapplied. By people of the
stature of Arrow....
candidate for mayor in Burlington VT in 2009, who also turned out to
be the Condorcet winner in an IRV election, is named "Andy
Montroll". last name "Montroll". with two L's no S nor E.
if it were me, i would eventually be annoyed if someone consistently
mispronounced or mispelled my name, even after the correct name has
been offered earlier.
Montroll. Chalk Montrose up to my age. Note: in a debate, you gain
one point if you generously and courteously correct a minor error by
your opponent. You lose ten points if you try to impeach your
opponent for a minor error, either directly or indirectly, as by
making a big fuss about it to underscore it, particularly with
sarcasm or countersinking.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
