Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Reality check: IRV vs Range and actually building a 3rd party

Expand Messages
  • brokenladdercalendar
    ... Well, there s no way to precisely measure that in the real world. You can t read minds. So Bayesian regret experiments are superior in that regard. Plus
    Message 1 of 128 , Jan 3, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In RangeVoting@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce R. Gilson" <brgster@...> wrote:
      > But I can't totally
      > 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
      > results.

      Well, there's no way to precisely measure that in the real world. You
      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 seem
      > happy with it.

      But there's no precise way to measure _how_ happy, relative to
      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'd
      > 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.

      I'd like to see it tried, but the evidence that it would be superior
      to IRV, plurality, etc. is simply massive and overwhelming. You can
      basically bet your life it would lead to really improved government.
    • steveel2
      ... For myself, I go one step further. It is one thing for the system to ALLOW sincere votes, and it is another for the system to not coerce people into
      Message 128 of 128 , Jan 3, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In RangeVoting@yahoogroups.com, Juho Laatu <juho4880@...> wrote:
        >
        > --- 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.


        For myself, I go one step further. It is one thing for the system to
        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
        strategically.

        Steve E

        PS Call me naive....
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.