I'm going to unsuscribe for a spell at least tomorrow night. It's been fun, for the most part.
I think my attempt at an intervention in the electoral debate here probably reached the point of diminishing returns a bit back... peace, dlw On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 4:52 PM, < [email protected]> wrote: > Send Election-Methods mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Election-Methods digest..." > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Does Range need an abstention/participation tally? (Jameson Quinn) > 2. Post-Autistic Electoral Analysis? (David L Wetzell) > 3. Oscar Voting (David L Wetzell) > 4. Re: Post-Autistic Electoral Analysis? (Jameson Quinn) > 5. Re: Oscar Voting (Jameson Quinn) > 6. Re: Post-Autistic Electoral Analysis? (David L Wetzell) > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Jameson Quinn <[email protected]> > To: EM <[email protected]>, electionsciencefoundation > <[email protected]> > Cc: > Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:15:01 -0600 > Subject: [EM] Does Range need an abstention/participation tally? > I'm working on sketching out data structures so that Helios > Voting<https://vote.heliosvoting.org/>, > an online, open-source, cryptographically-verifiable voting system, can use > advanced voting procedures such as Range, Majority Judgment, and SODA. > (Condorcet is a significantly harder problem but probably doable, and IRV > is essentially impossible). > > My question is: for the Range voting structures, is it acceptable to just > keep one tally (total score) for each candidate, or do you also need a > tally of number of voters who rated/didn't rate a candidate? The latter > would be used for average-based schemes; so this question is equivalent to > asking, are such schemes important enough to be worth making the data > structures more complex? Since I'm the one signing up for the programming > work here, I'd appreciate it if answers that ask me to do more work have a > reasoning and a strength (ie, "I'd kinda prefer it" versus "I think it is > absolutely necessary"). > > Jameson > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: David L Wetzell <[email protected]> > To: EM <[email protected]> > Cc: > Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:35:14 -0600 > Subject: [EM] Post-Autistic Electoral Analysis? > As you may know, at the beginning of this century, French and English > economics graduate students challenged the dominance of uber-mathematically > analytical approaches to Economics in what became the Post-Autistic > Economics movement. <http://www.paecon.net/HistoryPAE.htm>A lot of > their critiques apply similarly to rational choice models in political > science and might be worth pondering for electoral analytics. > > I myself consider my diffidence to jockeying for what's the best > single-winner alternative to FPTP as blissfully ignoring how joe average > voter(or habitual non-voter) is a creature of habit and won't respond to > being given umpteen more choices in the way policy-wonkish electoral > analysts would.This sort of behavioralist approach to voters is not unlike > as shown by neurologists looking into the political > brain<http://www.thepoliticalbrain.com/videos.php>. > > > But I do believe that many more folks can learn to vote more rationally > and that third parties and caucuses within major parties are the right > groups for them to learn how to do that, but that's why I'm so enthusiastic > about the strategic use of PR in "more local" elections, which ideally > would by giving activists more exit threat would lead to the use of more > caucuses like what is used by the Democrat-Farm-Labor party in > MN.<http://dfl.org/about/caucuses-conventions> > > So I'm not saying don't do electoral analytics, but don't lose sight of > the ambiguities involved in relating utopic, abstract models back to real > life. > > dlw > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: David L Wetzell <[email protected]> > To: EM <[email protected]> > Cc: > Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:40:40 -0600 > Subject: [EM] Oscar Voting > Steve Pond: > http://www.thewrap.com/awards/column-post/oscar-voting-now-passions-got-nothing-do-it-35468?page=0,0 > > The P of irv is on the rise, in addition to with the endorsement of Barack > Obama as highlighted in Rob Richies editorial in the NYTimes, and we're not > likely to change that in a way that similarly raises the P of *one * > alternative. > dlw > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Jameson Quinn <[email protected]> > To: David L Wetzell <[email protected]> > Cc: EM <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:42:38 -0600 > Subject: Re: [EM] Post-Autistic Electoral Analysis? > > > 2012/2/22 David L Wetzell <[email protected]> > >> As you may know, at the beginning of this century, French and English >> economics graduate students challenged the dominance of uber-mathematically >> analytical approaches to Economics in what became the Post-Autistic >> Economics movement. <http://www.paecon.net/HistoryPAE.htm>A lot of >> their critiques apply similarly to rational choice models in political >> science and might be worth pondering for electoral analytics. >> >> I myself consider my diffidence to jockeying for what's the best >> single-winner alternative to FPTP as blissfully ignoring how joe average >> voter(or habitual non-voter) is a creature of habit and won't respond to >> being given umpteen more choices in the way policy-wonkish electoral >> analysts would.This sort of behavioralist approach to voters is not unlike >> as shown by neurologists looking into the political >> brain<http://www.thepoliticalbrain.com/videos.php>. >> >> > > I too consider my advocacy of SODA, and to a lesser extent MJ, as being > strongly informed by a humanistic/cognitive view. It seems quite possible > that one of us is wrong. > > Jameson > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Jameson Quinn <[email protected]> > To: David L Wetzell <[email protected]> > Cc: EM <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:47:42 -0600 > Subject: Re: [EM] Oscar Voting > Um, the McCain/Obama endorsements are very old news – for instance, it's > from before either MJ or SODA even existed. (I know in the latter case > that's not saying much, nor am I claiming that Obama would be more likely > to endorse SODA today, I'm just saying that there are two systems today > that I consider reasonably well-explored and better than what existed > previously, that didn't exist over in the early 2000s when Obama endorsed > IRV.) > > 2012/2/22 David L Wetzell <[email protected]> > >> Steve Pond: >> http://www.thewrap.com/awards/column-post/oscar-voting-now-passions-got-nothing-do-it-35468?page=0,0 >> >> The P of irv is on the rise, in addition to with the endorsement of >> Barack Obama as highlighted in Rob Richies editorial in the NYTimes, and >> we're not likely to change that in a way that similarly raises the P of *one >> *alternative. >> dlw >> >> ---- >> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list >> info >> >> > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: David L Wetzell <[email protected]> > To: Jameson Quinn <[email protected]> > Cc: EM <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:52:01 -0600 > Subject: Re: [EM] Post-Autistic Electoral Analysis? > We could both be right, one in the short-run and the other in the > long-run... > > dlw > > On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Jameson Quinn <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> >> 2012/2/22 David L Wetzell <[email protected]> >> >>> As you may know, at the beginning of this century, French and English >>> economics graduate students challenged the dominance of uber-mathematically >>> analytical approaches to Economics in what became the Post-Autistic >>> Economics movement. <http://www.paecon.net/HistoryPAE.htm>A lot of >>> their critiques apply similarly to rational choice models in political >>> science and might be worth pondering for electoral analytics. >>> >>> I myself consider my diffidence to jockeying for what's the best >>> single-winner alternative to FPTP as blissfully ignoring how joe average >>> voter(or habitual non-voter) is a creature of habit and won't respond to >>> being given umpteen more choices in the way policy-wonkish electoral >>> analysts would.This sort of behavioralist approach to voters is not unlike >>> as shown by neurologists looking into the political >>> brain<http://www.thepoliticalbrain.com/videos.php>. >>> >>> >> >> I too consider my advocacy of SODA, and to a lesser extent MJ, as being >> strongly informed by a humanistic/cognitive view. It seems quite possible >> that one of us is wrong. >> >> Jameson >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Election-Methods mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com > >
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
