Re: Reality check: IRV vs Range and actually building a 3rd party
- --- In RangeVoting@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce R. Gilson" <brgster@...> wrote:
> But I can't totallyWell, there's no way to precisely measure that in the real world. You
> accept that Warren's simulations of BR are totally deciding either; I
> give a lot of weight to them, and reading about them in Poundstone's
> book is what made me a SV advocate. But the REAL proof of the pudding
> is real elections and whether they make people unhappy with the
can't read minds. So Bayesian regret experiments are superior in that
regard. Plus they show the superiority of SV over IRV to be so large,
that even if we play Devil's advocate and assume 50% of that actual
improvement, SV still significantly exceeds the quality of IRV.
> IRV *does* seem to work in Australia; most Australians seemBut there's no precise way to measure _how_ happy, relative to
> happy with it.
plurality or score voting.
And how relevant is that happiness if it is based off false beliefs
about the real benefit of IRV? Suppose that a doctor finds he can
create happiness in cancer patients by telling them that they are in
remission and going to be 100% recovered within a month. What
difference does that make if it's a lie, and they ultimately find out
that they are _not_ getting better?
IRV might give you the illusion that you have a better governmental
system, but if the leaders it selects really aren't statistically
better, or are better than plurality but worse than score voting, then
what difference does that make? It's a false sense of happiness.
Bayesian regret measures the REAL happiness.
> SV hasn't really been tried in public elections. I'dI'd like to see it tried, but the evidence that it would be superior
> certainly *like* to see it tried. Until it has been, all we can do is
> discuss the pluses and minuses of IRV, SV, Plurality, etc. And that
> will never settle the question.
to IRV, plurality, etc. is simply massive and overwhelming. You can
basically bet your life it would lead to really improved government.
- --- In RangeVoting@yahoogroups.com, Juho Laatu <juho4880@...> wrote:
>For myself, I go one step further. It is one thing for the system to
> --- On Sat, 3/1/09, Bruce R. Gilson <brgster@...> wrote:
> > --- In RangeVoting@yahoogroups.com, "steveel2"
> > <stevegeneral999@>
> > wrote:
> > > Bruce, I'm curious how you (and anyone else) feel
> > about strategic
> > > voting, per se. Is it a curse? A boon?
> I believe most voters definitely want to have
> a method that allows them to vote sincerely.
> That is already difficult enough.
ALLOW sincere votes, and it is another for the system to not coerce
people into forgoing that option. In other words, among other things
my ideal system would minimize the liklihood that ANYONE would vote
PS Call me naive....