[EM] Declaration of Election-Method Experts and Enthusiasts
On 8/29/2011 6:39 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote: I have made some further changes to the statement https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oyJLxI9dciXBbowM5mougnbGHzkL3Ue1QkD8nnMwWLg/edit?hl=en_US ... And I've made yet more changes -- to implement the requests made earlier. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oyJLxI9dciXBbowM5mougnbGHzkL3Ue1QkD8nnMwWLg/edit?hl=en_US I have not yet written the section about rounds of voting, which is an addition that was requested. Richard Fobes Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Declaration of Election-Method Experts and Enthusiasts
Why did you replace MJ with MCA? I understand that MCA's Bucklin-like logic is somewhat easier to explain to those who don't know what a median is; and certainly the methods are similar enough; but I deliberately chose to speak of MJ as the representative Bucklin method, because it has the clearest definition and the strongest support in the academic and popular literature. I still think MJ is the right choice for this statement, though I could be convinced otherwise if some serious MCA supporters came out of the woodwork. JQ 2011/8/30 Richard Fobes electionmeth...@votefair.org On 8/29/2011 6:39 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote: I have made some further changes to the statement https://docs.google.com/**document/d/**1oyJLxI9dciXBbowM5mougnbGHzkL3** Ue1QkD8nnMwWLg/edit?hl=en_UShttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1oyJLxI9dciXBbowM5mougnbGHzkL3Ue1QkD8nnMwWLg/edit?hl=en_US ... And I've made yet more changes -- to implement the requests made earlier. https://docs.google.com/**document/d/**1oyJLxI9dciXBbowM5mougnbGHzkL3** Ue1QkD8nnMwWLg/edit?hl=en_UShttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1oyJLxI9dciXBbowM5mougnbGHzkL3Ue1QkD8nnMwWLg/edit?hl=en_US I have not yet written the section about rounds of voting, which is an addition that was requested. Richard Fobes Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Declaration of Election-Method Experts and Enthusiasts
On 8/30/2011 7:17 AM, Jameson Quinn wrote: Why did you replace MJ with MCA? ... I was not aware that I made such a change. If I did, I apologize. I was blending the version I had written (before you made your changes) with your latest edits, and I may have made such a mistake. In any case, I am not very familiar with MJ and MCA methods, so I have been counting on you to deal with those descriptions. My edits are for the purpose of cleaning up the wording. In other words, please change it back to what you and other MJ/MCA advocates think it should be. Speaking of wording edits, as I said in a Google Docs comment, it would be best to avoid the word median in the description, and find a way to use the word half instead (such as half the voters , and the other half ...). I do agree that the name Bucklin is best avoided because of its historical past of having been used and rejected. Richard Fobes On 8/30/2011 7:17 AM, Jameson Quinn wrote: Why did you replace MJ with MCA? I understand that MCA's Bucklin-like logic is somewhat easier to explain to those who don't know what a median is; and certainly the methods are similar enough; but I deliberately chose to speak of MJ as the representative Bucklin method, because it has the clearest definition and the strongest support in the academic and popular literature. I still think MJ is the right choice for this statement, though I could be convinced otherwise if some serious MCA supporters came out of the woodwork. JQ 2011/8/30 Richard Fobes electionmeth...@votefair.org mailto:electionmeth...@votefair.org On 8/29/2011 6:39 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote: I have made some further changes to the statement https://docs.google.com/__document/d/__1oyJLxI9dciXBbowM5mougnbGHzkL3__Ue1QkD8nnMwWLg/edit?hl=en_US https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oyJLxI9dciXBbowM5mougnbGHzkL3Ue1QkD8nnMwWLg/edit?hl=en_US ... And I've made yet more changes -- to implement the requests made earlier. https://docs.google.com/__document/d/__1oyJLxI9dciXBbowM5mougnbGHzkL3__Ue1QkD8nnMwWLg/edit?hl=en_US https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oyJLxI9dciXBbowM5mougnbGHzkL3Ue1QkD8nnMwWLg/edit?hl=en_US I have not yet written the section about rounds of voting, which is an addition that was requested. Richard Fobes Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Voting reform statement; a clearer and more inspiring version
I did not see this message until after I had added the names of the Wikipedia articles. If we really are trying to get people to use our supported election methods then we cannot send them to academic journals or even general-audience books because the expected convention is to find information online. Another option is to provide one online location for each of the four supported methods. You could supply a website you like for your preferred method. The most appropriate choice for the Condorcet methods is the Condorcet method Wikipedia article. Richard Fobes On 8/29/2011 6:39 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote: I have made some further changes to the statement https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oyJLxI9dciXBbowM5mougnbGHzkL3Ue1QkD8nnMwWLg/edit?hl=en_US, mostly to clarify the advantages and to speak of how this issue spans the political spectrum; you may see them by looking at the doc. Currently, I think that the weakest point of the statement is the exhortation to look things up on Wikipedia. I suggest giving a bibliography, and saying that we do not endorse everything in every paper or book cited in our bibliography, and in particular we do not believe that any negative statement about the systems we have mentioned should be construed to imply that the system criticized is worse than plurality overall. The bibliography can include some Wikipedia articles, including voting system, but it should also include important scholarly articles, whether published in peer-reviewed journals or not. JQ Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
[EM] Declaration of Election-Method Experts and Enthusiasts
Here is what I've just written for the new section titled Multiple rounds of voting: --- begin In highly competitive elections, multiple rounds of voting are needed to eliminate the weakest candidates so that attention can be focused on electing one of the most popular candidates. Our supported election methods work as described for two rounds of voting if the first round of voting elects a single winner from each political party, and the second round chooses from among those winners. However, different counting methods are needed if the same voters vote in both rounds. There are election methods that handle such cases, and they use the better ballots we support. However, we have not yet analyzed this category of counting methods sufficiently to express support for any specific methods. We do strongly agree that single-mark ballots must not be used in any round of voting. More specifically, just as the candidate with the most first-choice votes is not necessarily the most popular, and the candidate with the fewest first-choice votes is not necessarily the least popular, the candidate with the second-most first-choice votes is not necessarily second-most popular, and the candidate with the second-fewest votes is not necessarily the second-least popular. Also we agree that open primary elections are not fair. In this approach, the candidates who are identified as most popular, regardless of political-party affiliation, progress to the next round. This approach fails to consider that the majority of voters who support the most-popular candidate are likely to be the same majority of voters who support the second-most popular candidate -- unless the counting method specifically compensates for this redundant influence. The remaining voters, who may almost be a majority, can end up with only getting to choose between the two candidates who are preferred by the majority. Expressed another way, the words most popular are ambiguous in the context of choosing which candidates deserve to progress to another round of voting. --- end I'm sure I'm missing some important additional considerations, but they aren't coming to me at the moment, so I'll tap into your brains to help refine this section. Of course we aren't offering a fair way to handle French presidential (?) first-round elections (in terms of which two candidates should move on to the final runoff election), but we have nothing specific we would agree on, right? Richard Fobes Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Declaration of Election-Method Experts and Enthusiasts
Too late this night for fancy words, but hopefully I can express some useful thoughts. On Aug 30, 2011, at 4:52 PM, Richard Fobes wrote: Here is what I've just written for the new section titled Multiple rounds of voting: --- begin In highly competitive elections, multiple rounds of voting are needed to eliminate the weakest candidates so that attention can be focused on electing one of the most popular candidates. Our supported election methods work as described for two rounds of voting if the first round of voting elects a single winner from each political party, and the second round chooses from among those winners. FPTP has a serious problem because it cannot let a voter vote for more than one candidate - and voters can want to vote for more than one - and to say which are liked better than others. Methods we are promoting, such as Score and Condorcet, give the voter needed power. With such methods rounds become less needed since voters can better express their desires in the main election. Likewise, when there are to be rounds, more of the weakest can be discarded before the round since we know better which of the weakest might believably win. The last sentence above is about primaries. FPTP desperately needed such to avoid multiple candidates from a party competing in an election. Once voters understand they can vote for more, and indicate their preference via rating or ranking, primaries will lose much of their backing - thus, possibly getting discarded with FPTP. Note that parties could have a single candidate and not have need for a primary, even in FPTP days. However, different counting methods are needed if the same voters vote in both rounds. There are election methods that handle such cases, and they use the better ballots we support. However, we have not yet analyzed this category of counting methods sufficiently to express support for any specific methods. Assuming primaries still exist, I see no need for that round being unlike the main election, even noting that some voters would be voting in both. We do strongly agree that single-mark ballots must not be used in any round of voting. More specifically, just as the candidate with the most first-choice votes is not necessarily the most popular, and the candidate with the fewest first-choice votes is not necessarily the least popular, the candidate with the second-most first-choice votes is not necessarily second-most popular, and the candidate with the second-fewest votes is not necessarily the second-least popular. Whatever makes single-mark evil needs explaining. As a Condorcet backer I have to choke. As an example assume that everyone considers V acceptable, and A, B, and C are each first choice for 1/3 of the voters, If they all rank V as second choice then, for each of the three groups, V will get twice as many Vx as x gets of xV. for being liked better than V. Also we agree that open primary elections are not fair. In this approach, the candidates who are identified as most popular, regardless of political-party affiliation, progress to the next round. This approach fails to consider that the majority of voters who support the most-popular candidate are likely to be the same majority of voters who support the second-most popular candidate -- unless the counting method specifically compensates for this redundant influence. The remaining voters, who may almost be a majority, can end up with only getting to choose between the two candidates who are preferred by the majority. Expressed another way, the words most popular are ambiguous in the context of choosing which candidates deserve to progress to another round of voting. If I cannot kill having primaries I would vote against open. --- end I'm sure I'm missing some important additional considerations, but they aren't coming to me at the moment, so I'll tap into your brains to help refine this section. Of course we aren't offering a fair way to handle French presidential (?) first-round elections (in terms of which two candidates should move on to the final runoff election), but we have nothing specific we would agree on, right? Richard Fobes Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] The meaning of a vote (or lack thereof)
Jameson, Jonathan and Fred, Jameson Quinn wrote: ...all of which merely serve to minimize its practical importance, not to assail its mathematical validity. I guess the critique is not aimed so much at the formal, mathematical validity of the method, as its actual validity in the real world. A method that strips the individual voter of power in the election is unfair, because it leaves her (or him) at the mercy of political forces that she is ill equipped to deal with. She ought to have a degree of influence over the course and outcome of the election. It is her right, and it is the responsibility of the election method above all to deliver on it. Not only is the individual voter placed at the mercy of forces over which she has little control, but society as a whole is compromised because of this. We can argue that the individual has important contributions to make to politics, ones that are sorely needed today. Those other actors who have taken her place on the political stage are not quite competent in that role. I've been trying to avoid entering this sub-thread, as I think it's mostly angels-on-pinheads stuff, but if you actually have a point, I suggest you make it, rather than portentiously musing on how it depends on a supposedly-proven, but still-debated claim. I feel that the point (see above) is supported by the argument and discussion. Several list members have attempted to detect some trace of utility in the election method with regard to the individual voter. So far, nothing was detected save a 1 in 10,000 year event at which the vote count lands on a mathematical cusp and every single vote is suddenly pregnant with meaning. Obviously that is insufficient for real people in the real world. With nothing else to deflect the critique, I think the point must begin to stick. Jonathan Lundell wrote: The usual argument that I've seen is that the expected utility of casting a vote (the utility of the result you favor, however you might measure that, times the probability that your vote will be decisive) is so small (because the probability is small) that the cost of casting the vote outweighs its utility. The validity of the argument depends on the election, of course. In a small enough voting body, it's not true. OTOH, it's obviously true for a US presidential voter in California, who we can safely assert will never be decisive in a presidential election. ... Then too, people are naturally equipped to handle social interactions at small scales. At the very smallest, they don't even need a formal method. It's only at the larger scales where formalisms are indispensible that it becomes possible for people to fall through the cracks of a poorly designed method - or rather, one that's been outmoded and had its weaknesses exploited - and be left defenceless. ... (And yet voters cast presidential votes in California.) We know that many a voter is unsatisfied with demcocracy, and must suspect at times that she (or he) is being cheated of its promise. Maybe she points to politicians in the capital as the culprits, but rarely does she point to the electoral method that is her one and only connection with that democracy. Somehow she places trust in a narrow bridge that now appears to be unworthy of it. Fred Gohlke wrote: Your reference to the experts made me think of Will Durant's observations in the preface to the second edition of The Story of Philosophy[pp v, vi]: ... philosophy itself, which had once summoned all sciences to its aid in making a coherent image of the world and an alluring picture of the good, found its task of coordination too stupendous for its courage, ran away from all these battlefronts of truth, and hid itself in recondite and narrow lanes, timidly secure from the issues and responsibilities of life. and ... The specialist put on blinders in order to shut out from his vision all the world but one little spot, to which he glued his nose. Perspective was lost. Facts replaced understanding; and knowledge, split into a thousand isolated fragments, no longer generated wisdom. Every science, and every branch of philosophy, developed a technical terminology intelligible only to its exclusive devotees; ... Let us hope we can find a tiny chink in this formidable armor so we can consider the purpose of Electoral Methods as well as the mechanics. I like those quotes :-) thank you for looking them up. They remind me of an analogy I once read (I couldn't find the source), that expert cultures and societal fragmentation are the wound of modernity, and that modernity, like the spear in Parsifal, is the only cure for it. Today we have 18th century electoral methods and 19th century mass parties. Together they seem to be robbing the individual of autonomous choice. Rousseau's opening argument in the Social Contract still rings true: Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains.
Re: [EM] The meaning of this discussion (or lack thereof)
matt welland wrote: Ah, yes I can see the error. Some poor and ambiguous English on my part. I intended to group the irrelevant and pointless and apply it to the word discuss. Sorry about that. I guess I understood that, no need to apologize. The meaning of an individual vote is mostly irrelevant and pointless to discuss. ... I still think you are wrong, and I put a question to you fair and square: Is it your intention to imply that the individual vote is irrelevant? Is that what you think, or not? -- Michael Allan Toronto, +1 416-699-9528 http://zelea.com/ matt welland wrote: On Mon, 2011-08-29 at 04:28 -0400, Michael Allan wrote: matt welland wrote: I did not say that a vote has little meaning, I said that it is meaningless to discuss the individual vote! Those are two vastly different things. Well, I think what you said is wrong. Here is the original version: The meaning of an individual vote is mostly irrelevant and pointless to discuss. ... This implies that the individual vote itself is irrelevant. I wish to clarify your intention on that point: are you saying that the individual vote is irrelevant Ah, yes I can see the error. Some poor and ambiguous English on my part. I intended to group the irrelevant and pointless and apply it to the word discuss. Sorry about that. Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
