Cheers. It's been nice to have you around. I have been hard on you where we disagree; but in general, beyond the details of your theories, I think that your focus on what is actually achievable is a very healthy reminder.
Jameson 2012/2/22 David L Wetzell <[email protected]> > 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 > >
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
