On 5/6/2012 12:00 PM, Adrian Tawfik wrote:
> ... He has been
> nothing short of a miracle for my website. In this case, Mr. Fobes has
> already stated several times that he is open to changing the wording of
> the rebuttal.
> ...
> ... publication to focus the rebuttal to be more of a regular article ...
Thank you for the compliment.
And I'll add that Adrian's "Democracy Chronicles" was overdue. It now
provides a great way to teach democracies (both new and old) how voting
should be done.
Instead of publishing my "rebuttal" as an article, here is what I
suggest. Adrian, in his own words, can introduce Mike's article by
saying that the article is about one of many voting methods (Approval
voting) and about one of many characteristics of voting methods (FBC).
Also in his introduction (or at the end) he can refer to the Wikipedia
comparison chart as a place where different voting methods and different
voting criteria are described and compared. That will put Mike's
article in context, which is what I was trying to accomplish.
(If appropriate, at the end of the article Adrian could repeat his
invitation for additional articles about other methods and other voting
criteria, because there are people outside this forum [and outside the
IRV circle as well] who are qualified to write articles on those topics.
This forum can serve to help Adrian identify which articles are
mathematically sound.)
Ideally I would hope that Mike recognizes that his article fails to
describe Approval voting in a way that would be understood by most
readers of Democracy Chronicles (especially considering its worldwide
readership, which implies that English may not be the reader's native
language). If he doesn't agree, Adrian can, in his own words, explain
Approval voting in his introduction. And I think that using an example
of people raising hands or saying "yes" makes it easy to understand, and
encourages people to try using it. I would think that Mike would want
people to try it to see how simple it is, and to give people an
opportunity to experience how it works better than plurality voting.
There is no need to mention the Condorcet criteria, as long as Mike does
not make any false claims about it, which I think that Adrian can now
identify as opinions rather than mathematically supported facts.
I think the above comments also address Mike's points in his recent
not-worthy-of-an-answer message.
It would be wonderful if Robert would write an article about what
happened in Burlington! That would clarify the importance of the
Condorcet criterion, and would help people understand that ranking
("1-2-3") ballots can be counted in more than one way.
If I have time I would like to write an article for Democracy Chronicles
about the concept that the "second-most popular" candidate is not
necessarily the same as the "second-most representative" candidate. And
if I have even more time I would like to write an article about my
software negotiation tool at www.Negotiation.com , which clarifies
concepts that are important when a parliament or legislature (or any
group of people) does voting to make decisions.
However, I am being pulled into a new project, so those articles may not
happen.
My goal is to focus on doing what needs to be done that no one else is
doing. In retrospect, connecting the Election-Methods forum with
Democracy Chronicles, which in turn connects with the Occupy Wall Street
movement and the 99% movement and perhaps the Arab Spring movements,
fits that goal.
Now that I've created an open-source version of VoteFair ranking
software, I am confident that the advantages of VoteFair ranking will
become clear as people learn about different kinds of popularity (which
is what VoteFair ranking software calculates), and the software will be
waiting for the time when democracy has taken a few more "baby" steps in
the direction of becoming much, much fairer than it is now.
There are other people who can promote the advantages of the Condorcet
criteria (which is why I said that anyone else would be welcome to write
the "rebuttal" comments, instead of using what I wrote).
(I do still intend to reply to Jameson's message from many weeks ago by
explaining why VoteFair ranking always ranks all the Smith-set
candidates above the non-Smith-set candidates, which means that it
easily, and quickly, and Condorcet-Kemeny compliantly, handles 50
candidates if there are not more than about six candidates in the Smith
set, but that reply requires more than just writing a few words.)
Again, thank you Adrian for your patience in dealing with the
complexities of voting methods, which, alas, gives rise to differences
of opinion about what characteristics are most important.
Richard Fobes
On 5/6/2012 12:00 PM, Adrian Tawfik wrote:
Hi again everyone,
Thank you again for all the time you have dedicated to the articles for
Democracy Chronicles. First, I would like to send my warmest welcome to
Mr. Bristow-Johnson. It definitely is not too late to write something
for the website. The article you describe, an analysis of the effects of
IRV voting in Burlington, would be perfect for the website and great for
our readers. You can send me the article anytime you like. I can help
you edit as much as you like, perhaps on google docs or Word, but I am
open to any suggestion.
to Mr Ossipoff and Mr Fobes,
Thank you both for your help and support. My suggestion for the issues
you have run into may help. I have found Mr. Fobes in the past to be
very understanding and flexible in my experience and I not only
benefited from his introduction of me to your group but also from his
consistently helpful suggestions throughout the process. He has been
nothing short of a miracle for my website. In this case, Mr. Fobes has
already stated several times that he is open to changing the wording of
the rebuttal. Before Mr. Ossipoff writes a counter-rebuttal, I think it
might help if we changed the wording of Mr. Fobes' rebuttal before
publication to focus the rebuttal to be more of a regular article, under
Mr. Fobes' name, that discusses the problems with Approval voting as he
sees them. We can link the articles together but we don't have to make
it a direct rebuttal as much as an independent analysis of Approval. I
would personally be very happy if we had a writer supporting every
possible method on display on your Wikipedia diagram camparison:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system#Compliance_of_selected_systems_.28table.29
As far as I'm concerned, with my current lack of knowledge, you could
throw a dart at that diagram and we could publish an article describing
the benefits of the method the dart landed on and another article on the
problems. The depth and diversity of election methodology that I have
been exposed to since I met your group is reason enough to expose
readers to different opinions of all of the forum members. I would like
the website to be a place where articles about election-methodolgy are
published next to articles on voter registration in the US and the
possibility of elections in Yemen. The world wants to hear your
conversation. Over 50% of our audience is outside of the US. Thank you
everyone for your continued help. I am going to post Mr. Ossipoff's
article very soon. Do you have any thoughts, questions or comments?
Adrian
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
