Re: [EM] Anyone got a good analysis on limitations of approval andrange voting? (long)
On Nov 9, 2009, at 11:48 PM, Matthew Welland wrote: Approval Does not meet the desire of some to be able to differentiate between I like, I like a lot etc. (note: this seems like perfectionism to me. Large numbers of voters and opinions all over the bell curve should make individual expression at the greater level of granularity irrelevant.) we should be able to express our preferences. Approval reduces our metric of preference to a 1-bit number, a dichotomy. i would like to have more bits in that number. Suite of complicated systems that strive to reach Condorcet ideals. No regular bloke would ever trust 'em because you can't explain how they work in one or two sentences. Round Robin tournament, Ranked Ballot: The contestant who wins in a single match is the candidate who is preferred over the other in more ballots. The candidate who is elected to office is the contestant who loses to no one in the round robin tournament. that's two sentences and two labels. Technically superior to other systems. Not clear what problem with approval they would solve. Unless you are a perfectionist and insist that individuals express nuances of opinion... like which candidate they like better than the other candidate? It was very tedious voting in any of the ranking systems. it's tedious to decide who you like better? who you would prefer if any two candidates are presented? i will say this: even though it is prohibited in the present IRV that Burlington VT has, there is no reason that ties should not be allowed in any ranked ballot. but i would agree it would be tedious to allocate preference points in Range. So, to re-frame my question. What is the fatal flaw with approval? it's essentially like Plurality except you get to mark X on more than one candidate (like you do in multi-seat races). i don't like it for multi-seat (in the state senate for the county i am in, all of our senators are elected from the county at large and there are 6 for my county) i always think i'm hurting a candidate i actively support by voting for another candidate from the same party that i approve of. so then i mark X on only one candidate and, if enough people vote tactically like that, the election works like Plurality. we want an improvement to Plurality because we might like a three or four party system (or 3 parties and viable independents). we want to not have to consider the likelihood of wasting our vote by deciding who to Approve of. we know we approve of the candidate we support, but it is a tactical decision to decide if you approve of a candidate you would normally approve of but is not the candidate that you have actively supported. like what if you're a little old lady and you like and support you representative legislator for re-election. and you support him over any likely candidate from the other party, and it might be close so you wanna feel like you helped him. but your grandson that you cherish and are proud is running as an independent. in fact you gave money to your grandson's campaign. you support your grandson. you don't know if he'll win or not, but you do not want to harm his chances. you also don't want your good ol' incumbent you've always supported. you want to make sure he doesn't lose to the other major party candidate. but you wouldn't mind harming his chances if the race ended up between him and your grandson. is that putting it in an accessible context? so then with Approval voting, for sure this grandma marks X by her grandson's name. but does she or doesn't she Approve her good ol' incumbent? Approval doesn't let you mark it Approve except in the race with my top choice. I'm not interested in subtle flaws that result in imperfect results. I'm interested in flaws that result in big problems such as those we see with plurality and IRV. how 'bout electing the wrong candidate? i mean isn't that the essential flaw? e.g. the flaw with the Electoral College is that sometimes it elects the wrong candidate. it does pretty good when it selects the same winner as the popular vote, but when it disagrees with the popular vote it *never* creates more legitimacy or confidence in the election results. so then why have it? what good is it? it's either ineffective in filtering the popular vote or, when it *is* effective it makes matters worse. such a useful device! with Condorcet you elect the candidate that, from the set of voters who have an opinion, is preferred by a majority of that set over any other candidate that you pick. any winner of an election system that elects a candidate who is not the Condercet winner, has elected someone whom was rejected by the voting majority in favor of the Condorcet winner who wasn't elected. how is that congruent to the principle of democracy? do we have elections and explicitly give it to the candidate
Re: [EM] Anyone got a good analysis on limitations of approval andrange voting? (long)
Dear Matthew, you wrote: Suite of complicated systems that strive to reach Condorcet ideals. 1. No regular bloke would ever trust 'em because you can't explain how they work in one or two sentences. Well, here's a very simple Condorcet system which can easily be explained in two sentences: 1. Let voters vote on candidate pairs, successively replacing the loser with a different candidate, in a random order of candidates. 2. As soon as all candidates have been included, the winner of the last pair is declared the overall winner. This system is arguably the earliest example of a Condorcet system. It was devised by Ramon Llull in the 13th century and was successfully used for elections in monastaries. It is easily understood by the common man since it resembles a procedure frequently used in child play. Yours, Jobst Matthew Welland schrieb: Thanks all for the discussion and pointers. I still can't concretely conclude anything yet but here are some rambling and random thoughts based on what was said and my prior experiences. Plurality 1. Leads to two lowest common denominator parties which are not accountable to the voters. This conclusion supported by real world observation. 2. Feels right to the non-critical mind, one man, one vote 3. Very fast at the polls Approval 1. Encourages participation of minor parties and thus should keep the big guys paying attention to a wider base. 2. Almost zero marginal implementation cost. Hanging chads count just fine :) 3. Understandable by anyone but feels wrong at first not fair, you get more than one vote. 4. Apparently has a terrible flaw but no one seems to be able to articulate it in layman terms. No real world experience available to illustrate the problem. Here is where I need to learn more. Data provided to date is unconvincing to me. 5. Does not meet the desire of some to be able to differentiate between I like, I like a lot etc. (note: this seems like perfectionism to me. Large numbers of voters and opinions all over the bell curve should make individual expression at the greater level of granularity irrelevant.) 6. Very fast at the polls. Pick yer favorites and head home for beer and telly. Range 1. Can break the vicious cycle of plurality 2. Not voting for someone at all can have a strong influence on election outcome. This is very non-intuitive and would take some getting used to. 3. Allows for nuanced voting. 4. Pain in the ass at the polls (relatively speaking). You can't safely disregard the candidates you don't care about so you *have* to assign everyone a ranking, possibly addressable by defaulting to zero for all candidates? This is considered a feature and I agree it has merit. But in reality it is a deal breaker for joe six pack and co. (and for lazy sobs like me). IRV 1. Demonstrably broken. 'nuff said. Suite of complicated systems that strive to reach Condorcet ideals. 1. No regular bloke would ever trust 'em because you can't explain how they work in one or two sentences. 2. Technically superior to other systems. 3. Not clear what problem with approval they would solve. Unless you are a perfectionist and insist that individuals express nuances of opinion... Some time ago I put together a site (primitive and unfinished[i]) to promote approval voting and in the process I spent a lot of time trying different systems on the web and repeatedly testing my own site. I noticed some interesting things from all that playing around. 1. It was very uncomfortable to go back to plurality after trying other systems. It feels unfair and broken. 2. It was very tedious voting in any of the ranking systems. 3. Approval felt boring but good. I have checked in on this list now and then and I admit I don't have the time or skills to follow all the arguments but it strikes me that approval voting is good enough to break the deadlock, at least in US politics and that it doesn't have any major flaws. The very understandable desire to be able to articulate in a finer grained way in your vote is perfectionism. With millions of voters, for every person on the fence about a particular candidate there will be some to either side who will essentially make or break the vote. If you are on the fence, approve or disapprove, it won't matter. So, to re-frame my question. What is the fatal flaw with approval? I'm not interested in subtle flaws that result in imperfect results. I'm interested in flaws that result in big problems such as those we see with plurality and IRV. [i] www.approvalvote.org Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Anyone got a good analysis on limitations of approval andrange voting? (long)
Dear Robert, you wrote: Round Robin tournament, Ranked Ballot: The contestant who wins in a single match is the candidate who is preferred over the other in more ballots. The candidate who is elected to office is the contestant who loses to no one in the round robin tournament. that's two sentences and two labels. But it's incomplete as well... Yours, Jobst Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Anyone got a good analysis on limitations of approval andrange voting? (long)
This method is also quite hand countable (unlike many other Condorcet methods). That was certainly an important feature in those days :-). It has some randomness in the results (when no Condorcet winner exists). Here's another one. Elect the candidate that wins all others in pairwise comparisons. If there is no such candidate, elect the one that needs least number of additional votes to win all others. (This is of course the famous minmax(margins) that I have promoted quite often.) Juho On Nov 10, 2009, at 12:57 PM, Jobst Heitzig wrote: Dear Matthew, you wrote: Suite of complicated systems that strive to reach Condorcet ideals. 1. No regular bloke would ever trust 'em because you can't explain how they work in one or two sentences. Well, here's a very simple Condorcet system which can easily be explained in two sentences: 1. Let voters vote on candidate pairs, successively replacing the loser with a different candidate, in a random order of candidates. 2. As soon as all candidates have been included, the winner of the last pair is declared the overall winner. This system is arguably the earliest example of a Condorcet system. It was devised by Ramon Llull in the 13th century and was successfully used for elections in monastaries. It is easily understood by the common man since it resembles a procedure frequently used in child play. Yours, Jobst Matthew Welland schrieb: Thanks all for the discussion and pointers. I still can't concretely conclude anything yet but here are some rambling and random thoughts based on what was said and my prior experiences. Plurality 1. Leads to two lowest common denominator parties which are not accountable to the voters. This conclusion supported by real world observation. 2. Feels right to the non-critical mind, one man, one vote 3. Very fast at the polls Approval 1. Encourages participation of minor parties and thus should keep the big guys paying attention to a wider base. 2. Almost zero marginal implementation cost. Hanging chads count just fine :) 3. Understandable by anyone but feels wrong at first not fair, you get more than one vote. 4. Apparently has a terrible flaw but no one seems to be able to articulate it in layman terms. No real world experience available to illustrate the problem. Here is where I need to learn more. Data provided to date is unconvincing to me. 5. Does not meet the desire of some to be able to differentiate between I like, I like a lot etc. (note: this seems like perfectionism to me. Large numbers of voters and opinions all over the bell curve should make individual expression at the greater level of granularity irrelevant.) 6. Very fast at the polls. Pick yer favorites and head home for beer and telly. Range 1. Can break the vicious cycle of plurality 2. Not voting for someone at all can have a strong influence on election outcome. This is very non-intuitive and would take some getting used to. 3. Allows for nuanced voting. 4. Pain in the ass at the polls (relatively speaking). You can't safely disregard the candidates you don't care about so you *have* to assign everyone a ranking, possibly addressable by defaulting to zero for all candidates? This is considered a feature and I agree it has merit. But in reality it is a deal breaker for joe six pack and co. (and for lazy sobs like me). IRV 1. Demonstrably broken. 'nuff said. Suite of complicated systems that strive to reach Condorcet ideals. 1. No regular bloke would ever trust 'em because you can't explain how they work in one or two sentences. 2. Technically superior to other systems. 3. Not clear what problem with approval they would solve. Unless you are a perfectionist and insist that individuals express nuances of opinion... Some time ago I put together a site (primitive and unfinished[i]) to promote approval voting and in the process I spent a lot of time trying different systems on the web and repeatedly testing my own site. I noticed some interesting things from all that playing around. 1. It was very uncomfortable to go back to plurality after trying other systems. It feels unfair and broken. 2. It was very tedious voting in any of the ranking systems. 3. Approval felt boring but good. I have checked in on this list now and then and I admit I don't have the time or skills to follow all the arguments but it strikes me that approval voting is good enough to break the deadlock, at least in US politics and that it doesn't have any major flaws. The very understandable desire to be able to articulate in a finer grained way in your vote is perfectionism. With millions of voters, for every person on the fence about a particular candidate there will be some to either side who will essentially make or break the vote. If you are on
Re: [EM] Anyone got a good analysis on limitations of approval andrange voting? (long)
On Tuesday 10 November 2009 03:57:34 am you wrote: Dear Matthew, you wrote: Suite of complicated systems that strive to reach Condorcet ideals. 1. No regular bloke would ever trust 'em because you can't explain how they work in one or two sentences. Well, here's a very simple Condorcet system which can easily be explained in two sentences: 1. Let voters vote on candidate pairs, successively replacing the loser with a different candidate, in a random order of candidates. 2. As soon as all candidates have been included, the winner of the last pair is declared the overall winner. This system is arguably the earliest example of a Condorcet system. It was devised by Ramon Llull in the 13th century and was successfully used for elections in monastaries. It is easily understood by the common man since it resembles a procedure frequently used in child play. That is an excellent description. Thanks. I've always liked that specific system and think being Condorcet compliant makes great sense in smaller elections or where a perfect choice is critical. Implementing it on a large scale seems tough and actually voting in it seems tedious. If there are N candidates am I forced to make N-1 decisions? If there is a short circuit way to do the vote then it might be workable. The improvement over approval still seems marginal, especially in large elections and I think the cost for implementing, tabulating and voting is much higher, Yours, Jobst Matthew Welland schrieb: Thanks all for the discussion and pointers. I still can't concretely conclude anything yet but here are some rambling and random thoughts based on what was said and my prior experiences. Plurality 1. Leads to two lowest common denominator parties which are not accountable to the voters. This conclusion supported by real world observation. 2. Feels right to the non-critical mind, one man, one vote 3. Very fast at the polls Approval 1. Encourages participation of minor parties and thus should keep the big guys paying attention to a wider base. 2. Almost zero marginal implementation cost. Hanging chads count just fine :) 3. Understandable by anyone but feels wrong at first not fair, you get more than one vote. 4. Apparently has a terrible flaw but no one seems to be able to articulate it in layman terms. No real world experience available to illustrate the problem. Here is where I need to learn more. Data provided to date is unconvincing to me. 5. Does not meet the desire of some to be able to differentiate between I like, I like a lot etc. (note: this seems like perfectionism to me. Large numbers of voters and opinions all over the bell curve should make individual expression at the greater level of granularity irrelevant.) 6. Very fast at the polls. Pick yer favorites and head home for beer and telly. Range 1. Can break the vicious cycle of plurality 2. Not voting for someone at all can have a strong influence on election outcome. This is very non-intuitive and would take some getting used to. 3. Allows for nuanced voting. 4. Pain in the ass at the polls (relatively speaking). You can't safely disregard the candidates you don't care about so you *have* to assign everyone a ranking, possibly addressable by defaulting to zero for all candidates? This is considered a feature and I agree it has merit. But in reality it is a deal breaker for joe six pack and co. (and for lazy sobs like me). IRV 1. Demonstrably broken. 'nuff said. Suite of complicated systems that strive to reach Condorcet ideals. 1. No regular bloke would ever trust 'em because you can't explain how they work in one or two sentences. 2. Technically superior to other systems. 3. Not clear what problem with approval they would solve. Unless you are a perfectionist and insist that individuals express nuances of opinion... Some time ago I put together a site (primitive and unfinished[i]) to promote approval voting and in the process I spent a lot of time trying different systems on the web and repeatedly testing my own site. I noticed some interesting things from all that playing around. 1. It was very uncomfortable to go back to plurality after trying other systems. It feels unfair and broken. 2. It was very tedious voting in any of the ranking systems. 3. Approval felt boring but good. I have checked in on this list now and then and I admit I don't have the time or skills to follow all the arguments but it strikes me that approval voting is good enough to break the deadlock, at least in US politics and that it doesn't have any major flaws. The very understandable desire to be able to articulate in a finer grained way in your vote is perfectionism. With millions of
Re: [EM] Anyone got a good analysis on limitations of approval andrange voting? (long)
On Nov 10, 2009, at 7:58 AM, Matthew Welland wrote: On Tuesday 10 November 2009 03:57:34 am you wrote: Dear Matthew, you wrote: Suite of complicated systems that strive to reach Condorcet ideals. 1. No regular bloke would ever trust 'em because you can't explain how they work in one or two sentences. Well, here's a very simple Condorcet system which can easily be explained in two sentences: 1. Let voters vote on candidate pairs, successively replacing the loser with a different candidate, in a random order of candidates. 2. As soon as all candidates have been included, the winner of the last pair is declared the overall winner. This system is arguably the earliest example of a Condorcet system. It was devised by Ramon Llull in the 13th century and was successfully used for elections in monastaries. It is easily understood by the common man since it resembles a procedure frequently used in child play. That is an excellent description. Thanks. Gives a feel for something good enough for their purposes - if there is a CW the CW wins. BUT, if there is a cycle, the best candidate can lose to another cycle member - so better make sure the apparent CW gets compared with every other candidate. I've always liked that specific system and think being Condorcet compliant makes great sense in smaller elections or where a perfect choice is critical. Implementing it on a large scale seems tough and actually voting in it seems tedious. If there are N candidates am I forced to make N-1 decisions? If there is a short circuit way to do the vote then it might be workable. In voting you could start with thinking who you would approve of. Then vote for them, while ignoring the others that you like less. Do any of: Approve them by giving them the same rank. Vote for the best as in FPTP. Rank them to show your preference for better vs lesser. The improvement over approval still seems marginal, especially in large elections and I think the cost for implementing, tabulating and voting is much higher, Agreed the implementing costs - mostly in being able to do this. With the ability you get a big help in some elections and less or little in others (like 0 when only two candidates). Tabulating a ballot gets to be labor when a voter ranks many candidates. Being able to determine winner from the N*N array was an implementing cost, but then easy to do via computer (assuming use of an easy variant of Condorcet). Voters who were happy with FPTP will see no benefit - but no cost once they see they can vote as they have before. Voters who have studied range/score will make two groups: sad to be unable to express the exact size of their likes/dislikes; thankful for the easier decisions involved here. Voters who want to rank higher those they like best will be thankful to get past approval. Dave Ketchum Yours, Jobst Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Anyone got a good analysis on limitations of approval andrange voting? (long)
Thanks all for the discussion and pointers. I still can't concretely conclude anything yet but here are some rambling and random thoughts based on what was said and my prior experiences. Plurality Leads to two lowest common denominator parties which are not accountable to the voters. This conclusion supported by real world observation. Feels right to the non-critical mind, one man, one vote Very fast at the polls Approval Encourages participation of minor parties and thus should keep the big guys paying attention to a wider base. Almost zero marginal implementation cost. Hanging chads count just fine :) Understandable by anyone but feels wrong at first not fair, you get more than one vote. Apparently has a terrible flaw but no one seems to be able to articulate it in layman terms. No real world experience available to illustrate the problem. Here is where I need to learn more. Data provided to date is unconvincing to me. Does not meet the desire of some to be able to differentiate between I like, I like a lot etc. (note: this seems like perfectionism to me. Large numbers of voters and opinions all over the bell curve should make individual expression at the greater level of granularity irrelevant.) Very fast at the polls. Pick yer favorites and head home for beer and telly. Range Can break the vicious cycle of plurality Not voting for someone at all can have a strong influence on election outcome. This is very non-intuitive and would take some getting used to. Allows for nuanced voting. Pain in the ass at the polls (relatively speaking). You can't safely disregard the candidates you don't care about so you *have* to assign everyone a ranking, possibly addressable by defaulting to zero for all candidates? This is considered a feature and I agree it has merit. But in reality it is a deal breaker for joe six pack and co. (and for lazy sobs like me). IRV Demonstrably broken. 'nuff said. Suite of complicated systems that strive to reach Condorcet ideals. No regular bloke would ever trust 'em because you can't explain how they work in one or two sentences. Technically superior to other systems. Not clear what problem with approval they would solve. Unless you are a perfectionist and insist that individuals express nuances of opinion... Some time ago I put together a site (primitive and unfinished[i]) to promote approval voting and in the process I spent a lot of time trying different systems on the web and repeatedly testing my own site. I noticed some interesting things from all that playing around. It was very uncomfortable to go back to plurality after trying other systems. It feels unfair and broken. It was very tedious voting in any of the ranking systems. Approval felt boring but good. I have checked in on this list now and then and I admit I don't have the time or skills to follow all the arguments but it strikes me that approval voting is good enough to break the deadlock, at least in US politics and that it doesn't have any major flaws. The very understandable desire to be able to articulate in a finer grained way in your vote is perfectionism. With millions of voters, for every person on the fence about a particular candidate there will be some to either side who will essentially make or break the vote. If you are on the fence, approve or disapprove, it won't matter. So, to re-frame my question. What is the fatal flaw with approval? I'm not interested in subtle flaws that result in imperfect results. I'm interested in flaws that result in big problems such as those we see with plurality and IRV. [i] www.approvalvote.org Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
