On 12/2/11 11:46 AM, David L Wetzell wrote:
dlw: Deep down, I am skeptical of whether a multi-party
system improves things that much or would do so in my country.
RBJ:i am thoroughly convinced that a multi-party (and viable
independent) system improves things over the
Thanks for worthy comments, but I disagree a bit:
We need single-member districts, for we have offices that fit,
such as mayor and governor.
We need to ban plurality. While plurality is enough on a
good day, most any election can have bad days. I will promote
Condorcet
We're still hitting the same disagreements. I say look at the others,
you say this time it'll be different, I say Condorcet IRV, you
say marketing differences are great while in practice, there's no
difference between Condorcet and IRV large enough to make a difference.
Thus, let me do some
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 7:31 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm km_el...@lavabit.com
wrote:
We're still hitting the same disagreements. I say look at the others,
you say this time it'll be different, I say Condorcet IRV, you say
marketing differences are great while in practice, there's no difference
On 12/1/11 5:14 PM, David L Wetzell wrote:
KM:If the cost of campaigning is high enough that only the two
major parties can play the game, then money (what you call $peech)
will still have serious influence.
dlw:My understanding/political theory is that $peech is inevitable and
Trying one more time to start a sales pitch for switching from IRV to
Condorcet.
On Dec 1, 2011, at 10:18 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
On 12/1/11 5:14 PM, David L Wetzell wrote:
KM:If the cost of campaigning is high enough that only the two
major parties can play the game, then
On 12/1/11 11:33 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote:
Trying one more time to start a sales pitch for switching from IRV to
Condorcet.
well regarding me, you're preaching to the choir.
--
r b-j r...@audioimagination.com
Imagination is more important than knowledge.
This thread now has 50 messages, back-and-forth. I'll try to make this my
last word on the subject.
Basically, the bottom line for me is that I trust real evidence more than I
trust theory, but I need to find room to take hopeful action. That's not a
matter of building an elaborate model of
Condorcet is easy for voters to move to for it is a strong, but
simple, step up from FPTP and:
1. Ranking means ability indicate order of varying desires of liking
candidates.
2. But ranking is much less of a task than Score's rating where you
have to calculate the difference in value of A
matt welland wrote:
On Sat, 2011-11-26 at 22:31 -0500, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
On 11/26/11 6:58 PM, matt welland wrote:
Also, do folks generally see approval as better than or worse than IRV?
they don't know anything about Approval (or Score or Borda or Bucklin or
Condorcet) despite
2011/11/27 matt welland m...@kiatoa.com
On Sat, 2011-11-26 at 22:31 -0500, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
On 11/26/11 6:58 PM, matt welland wrote:
Also, do folks generally see approval as better than or worse than IRV?
they don't know anything about Approval (or Score or Borda or Bucklin
On 27.11.2011, at 8.05, matt welland wrote:
On Sat, 2011-11-26 at 22:31 -0500, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
On 11/26/11 6:58 PM, matt welland wrote:
Also, do folks generally see approval as better than or worse than IRV?
they don't know anything about Approval (or Score or Borda or Bucklin
David L Wetzell wrote:
The two major-party equilibrium would be centered around the de
facto center.
But positioning yourself around the de facto center is dangerous in
IRV. You might get center-squeezed unless either you or your voters
start using strategic
David L Wetzell wrote:
KM:I think this is where we differ, really. On a scale from 0 to 1,
you think their relative merit is something like:
0: Plurality
0.7: IRV3/AV3
0.72: Condorcet, MJ, etc
while I think it's something like:
0: Plurality
0.25: IRV
robert bristow-johnson wrote:
what do you mean: weight? rankings are just rankings. if a voter
ranks Candidate A above Candidate B (independent of what the absolute
rank values are), all that means is that this voter would vote for A if
it were a simple two-candidate race with B. and all
Note that Majority Judgment, Range, and even arguably Approval are
independent of irrelevant alternatives. Majority Judgment is the clearest;
it passes IIA even with simple zero-information strategy. (That is to say,
with MJ it is reasonable to vote honestly on an absolute scale, unlike
Range or
On Sat, 2011-11-26 at 16:56 -0500, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
On 11/26/11 4:08 PM, David L Wetzell wrote:
the counterexample, again, is Burlington Vermont. Dems haven't sat in
the mayor's chair for decades.
Is this due to a split of the liberal vote by progressives or other
liberal
On 11/26/11 6:58 PM, matt welland wrote:
On Sat, 2011-11-26 at 16:56 -0500, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
the counterexample, again, is Burlington Vermont. Dems haven't sat in
the mayor's chair for decades.
Is this due to a split of the liberal vote by progressives or other
liberal blocs? Or
Both Score and Approval are non-starters, because of the nature of the
ballot. but a ranked ballot is not a non-starter,
Score and Approval are not the only rated systems. I favor a rated ballot -
both more information and, if you can avoid the strategic burden, actually
easier for the
Here's I think the crux of your mistake:
We can't say it's just a matter of opinion, cuz it's probably not such,
I don't want to get too far into philosophical issues here, but I think
that in one sense we can basically take it for granted that it's not such:
that, in the proverbial phrase,
On Sat, 2011-11-26 at 22:31 -0500, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
On 11/26/11 6:58 PM, matt welland wrote:
Also, do folks generally see approval as better than or worse than IRV?
they don't know anything about Approval (or Score or Borda or Bucklin or
Condorcet) despite some effort by me to
David L Wetzell wrote:
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Jameson Quinn jameson.qu...@gmail.com
mailto:jameson.qu...@gmail.com wrote:
What kind of evidence would convince you to change your mind about
IRV? How about on IRV3/AV3 resolving most of IRV's problems? (I
believe that
-johnson r...@audioimagination.com
mailto:r...@audioimagination.com
To: election-methods@lists.electorama.com
mailto:election-methods@lists.electorama.com
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 15:50:02 -0500
Subject: Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.
On 11/24/11 2:20 PM, David L
I absolutely agree. We should not waste energy fighting over which election
system is the ideal. For instance, if we are given the opportunity to sign
a statement which clearly states some of the problems with the current
system and supports several solutions we believe would help, including
Let me start off by saying that I'm thankful for this list-serve of people
passionate about electoral reform
and that you put together a working consensus statement. I'm trying to
work it some more...
My belief is that the US's system makes it necessary to frame electoral
reform simply and to
On 11/24/11 2:20 PM, David L Wetzell wrote:
Let me start off by saying that I'm thankful for this list-serve of
people passionate about electoral reform
and that you put together a working consensus statement. I'm trying
to work it some more...
My belief is that the US's system makes it
I think it would be great if we could unite all the activists, theorists,
and academics behind a single plan for system-wide election reform. I would
get behind such a plan in a heartbeat, even if I thought it was flawed in
its details.
But that is, demonstrably, not happening.
David, you do not
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Jameson Quinn jameson.qu...@gmail.comwrote:
I think it would be great if we could unite all the activists, theorists,
and academics behind a single plan for system-wide election reform. I would
get behind such a plan in a heartbeat, even if I thought it was
You can't end FPTP without following its logic and that entails the
sort of activism mastered by FairVote
And it's going to get easier to push for electoral reforms in the coming
year thanks to #OWS
#OWS embraces consensus logic, the polar opposite of plurality logic. And
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Jameson Quinn jameson.qu...@gmail.comwrote:
You can't end FPTP without following its logic and that entails the
sort of activism mastered by FairVote
And it's going to get easier to push for electoral reforms in the coming
year thanks to #OWS
On Nov 24, 2011, at 3:50 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
On 11/24/11 2:20 PM, David L Wetzell wrote:
Let me start off by saying that I'm thankful for this list-serve of
people passionate about electoral reform
and that you put together a working consensus statement. I'm
trying to work it
The variations in x, particularly among low-info voters as we
predominantly have in the USA, are too small to put a lot of time/energy
into trying to get it perfect. It just lowers the p because of the
proliferation of election rules trying to become numero uno.
But how else do we make more
-- Forwarded message --
From: Richard Fobes electionmeth...@votefair.org
To: election-meth...@electorama.com
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 11:53:06 -0800
Subject: Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.
On 11/22/2011 9:38 AM, David L Wetzell wrote: So how about it? Can we try
dlw: All analysis shows that the perceived problems with IRV are seriously
attenuated with only 3 candidates.
The primary anti-IRV example people use is Burlington, with only 3 major
candidates.
Jameson
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
34 matches
Mail list logo
