On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 4:47 AM, Jameson Quinn <[email protected]>wrote:
> > > 2011/11/27 David L Wetzell <[email protected]> > >> meh, >> I don't want to take bet number 1. >> > > Understood. Please notice what you're saying here: you think you are > unlikely in practice (less than 17%, if you were a rational > money-maximizer) to convince people on this list to line up behind IRV. I > obviously agree with this assessment, or I would not have offered the bet. > Maybe, I'm risk averse? I think a plurality of you would at least strategically support IRV, but you framed it as a majority. > > So, what does that mean for the utility of signing the statement? I know > how I'd answer that question, but I want to know how you do. > dlw: I don't think the statement is going to make much of a diff either way. Electoral reform in the USA is more of a marketing problem than an analytical problem. IOW, the ps dominate the xs and it's going to be hard to get you all to agree on the best x so as to elevate its p. > > >> So I'll take bet number 2, >> > > OK, we'll talk off-list about settling the details of bet 2 ("10 years > from now, IF there have been over 20 independent cases of voting reform in > the USA, then 10 of them will/will not be IRV.") > sure. dlw > > Jameson >
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
