I like the label "Advocates" since, while being an enthused backer, I
do not want to start a debate as to whether I qualify as an expert.
What brings us here is strong agreement that Plurality voting
ABSOLUTELY should NOT be backed for serious use in our elections.
While in many elections many voters desire nothing beyond Plurality's
ability to vote for a single candidate, there is often a desire to
vote for more than one candidate, with the voter able to indicate
equal desire for or unequal desire for those the voter chooses to back.
While the desire to change brings us together, we do not agree as to
the best destination to change to, and agree to leave agreeing as to
destination to our future, though we can agree as to some details:
. We certainly leave the Plurality weakness that got us together
in our past.
. We reject weaknesses (such as IRV's willingness to ignore much
of the ranking, thus ignoring true desires).
(I apologize, wanting to submit this, yet being unable to do
better tonight. The voting patterns that result in IRV and similar
methods ignoring voters' true desires via incomplete counting of votes
should cause rejection of such methods. Burlington was an example of
IRV failing to read true voter desires.)
Dave Ketchum
On Oct 12, 2011, at 8:57 PM, Richard Fobes wrote:
To: Kristofer Munsterhjelm
I believe that you imply, in your message copied below, that you
like the following words in the older version of the recently edited
paragraph (of the Declaration of Election-Method Reform Advocates):
"... we would not hesitate to support any of these methods over
plurality voting"
Unfortunately it is becoming clear that the words "support" and
"any" are problematic.
Does "support" mean just being willing to vote for any one of them
if a referendum is offered? Or does it mean that every time one of
us advocates the adoption of our favorite method that we must also
mention, and express support for, all the other declaration-
supported methods? And if one of us supports a non-favorite method
in some circumstances but not in other circumstances, would our
commitment to the declaration be violated if we expressed opposition
to that non-favorite method being adopted in a situation for which
we think is not appropriate?
Very significantly, does signing the declaration mean that none of
us can collect signatures for a different declaration that supports
only our favorite method? This issue already arose when Warren
Smith posted a petition expressing support for range voting, with
added support for an additional method (Approval?), without
mentioning Condorcet methods. I think that such actions should not
be disallowed.
Although I too would like to express strong cooperation among
election-method experts, I think it is more important that our
signatures represent solid backing for every sentence in the
declaration (except perhaps the sentences in the method-specific
"advantage" paragraphs, which are clearly qualified as being from
each method's advocates).
Looking farther into the future, I presume we will be getting
signatures from non-experts, and I think we can get more signatures
if we do not try to falsely imply unity that isn't really among us,
and isn't among the non-experts (especially keeping in mind that IRV
advocates may want to sign it).
Our real purpose, as I see it, is to express opposition against
plurality voting and single-mark ballots, and do so based on our
credibility as expert mathematicians (and social-choice experts,
etc.). That is what "on-the-ground" and "in-the-streets" election-
method reform advocates -- the ones who are willing to attract media
attention and take leadership roles for such reforms -- need as
ammunition in their fight against plurality voting. Remember that
they, not we, will be choosing which election methods will become
adopted, and where.
If there is additional support from other election-method experts
for the previous/older wording, then we may be able to find a
compromise wording. Otherwise I think we need to keep the new
wording. Yet, as I've expressed before, we are striving to reach
consensus, so at this point we have just two votes from Jameson
Quinn and I for the new wording and one vote for the older wording.
This ballot box is still open for further opinions.
Richard Fobes
On 10/11/2011 8:55 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Richard Fobes wrote:
If you have already signed the declaration and do not like the new
wording, please say so. If necessary we can remove your signature,
but
hopefully we can resolve any objection (which is likely to be an
issue
for others as well). If you like the new wording and have already
signed, no reply is needed.
If this wording refinement is now enticing you to sign this
declaration, please supply your signature in the previously shown
format. (A semicolon separates the signature into: name; contact
info
(non-software-collectible); credentials; election-method preference)
I would prefer the previous version, because it states outright
that we
prefer each other's advanced methods to Plurality, which I think is
the
case. I don't know about the opinions of the others, but in my
opinion,
Plurality is a pretty low bar to clear. Of the "realistic" methods
(e.g.
not things like Antiplurality, whoever-comes-last-wins, etc), the
only
ones where I'd be cautious to say I prefer them over plurality
would be
IRV and Borda.
I would still sign the new version, but I think that if we can
agree to
support each other's methods against Plurality, the declaration
will be
stronger for it.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
