Am I still subscribed?
Haven't seen any activity for a couple of weeks, just checking.
Ted
Frango ut patefaciam -- I break so that I may reveal
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Monkey Puzzle araucaria.araucana@gmail.com
wrote:
Haven't seen any activity for a couple of weeks, just checking.
I'm still here. I fear many of us are so overwhelmed with current events
that it's difficult to muster the energy for something as forward looking
as a change to the electoral process.
Rob
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: [EM] Am I still subscribed?
From: "Rob Lanphier" robla@robla.net
Date: Tue, February 7, 2017 5:38 pm
To: "Monkey Puzzle" araucaria.araucana@gmail.com
Cc: "EM" election-methods@lists.electorama.com
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Monkey Puzzle araucaria.araucana@gmail.com
wrote:
Haven't seen any activity for a couple of weeks, just checking.
I'm still here. I fear many of us are so overwhelmed with current events
that it's difficult to muster the energy for something as forward looking
as a change to the electoral process.
so true.
--
r b-j � � � � � � � � �rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
I've actually become more optimistic recently. I think the opportunity for
reform is actually brighter now than it would have been had Trump lost.
Frango ut patefaciam -- I break so that I may reveal
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 3:16 PM, robert bristow-johnson <
rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote:
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: [EM] Am I still subscribed?
From: "Rob Lanphier" robla@robla.net
Date: Tue, February 7, 2017 5:38 pm
To: "Monkey Puzzle" araucaria.araucana@gmail.com
Cc: "EM" election-methods@lists.electorama.com
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Monkey Puzzle <
wrote:
Haven't seen any activity for a couple of weeks, just checking.
I'm still here. I fear many of us are so overwhelmed with current events
that it's difficult to muster the energy for something as forward looking
as a change to the electoral process.
so true.
--
r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
On 2/7/2017 4:03 PM, Monkey Puzzle wrote:
I've actually become more optimistic recently. I think the
opportunity for reform is actually brighter now than it would have
been had Trump lost.
Just after the election I too was hopeful.
However I have lost that optimism as a result of seeing that most voters
have become distracted by other, less-important, election issues, such
as voter suppression, "fake news," Russian hacking, gerrymandering,
electoral college votes, cabinet-member choices, etc.
Compared to those issues, banning single-mark ballots would have far
more success. Alas, we have not been able to get that concept across.
I was also optimistic that Canada would follow through on the prime
minister's promise to abandon "first-past-the-post," but that has ended
with no reform because election-method reformers cannot agree on what to
replace FPTP with.
As I said earlier, now my focus is on planning videos that are both more
entertaining and easier to understand compared to the books and articles
I've written.
Richard Fobes
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: [EM] Am I still subscribed?
From: "VoteFair" electionmethods@votefair.org
Date: Tue, February 7, 2017 11:03 pm
To: "election-methods@lists.electorama.com" election-methods@lists.electorama.com
On 2/7/2017 4:03 PM, Monkey Puzzle wrote:
I've actually become more optimistic recently. I think the
opportunity for reform is actually brighter now than it would have
been had Trump lost.
Just after the election I too was hopeful.
However I have lost that optimism as a result of seeing that most voters
have become distracted by other, less-important, election issues, such
as voter suppression, "fake news," Russian hacking, gerrymandering,
electoral college votes, cabinet-member choices, etc.
Compared to those issues, banning single-mark ballots would have far
more success. Alas, we have not been able to get that concept across.
I was also optimistic that Canada would follow through on the prime
minister's promise to abandon "first-past-the-post," but that has ended
with no reform because election-method reformers cannot agree on what to
replace FPTP with.
As I said earlier, now my focus is on planning videos that are both more
entertaining and easier to understand compared to the books and articles
I've written.
well, here's a new issue (or returning issue) to get upset over.
�
https://www.thenation.com/article/house-republicans-just-voted-to-eliminate-the-only-federal-agency-that-makes-sure-voting-machines-cant-be-hacked/�
�
--
r b-j � � � � � � � � �rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
On 02/08/2017 05:03 AM, VoteFair wrote:
On 2/7/2017 4:03 PM, Monkey Puzzle wrote:
I've actually become more optimistic recently. I think the
opportunity for reform is actually brighter now than it would have
been had Trump lost.
Just after the election I too was hopeful.
However I have lost that optimism as a result of seeing that most voters
have become distracted by other, less-important, election issues, such
as voter suppression, "fake news," Russian hacking, gerrymandering,
electoral college votes, cabinet-member choices, etc.
Compared to those issues, banning single-mark ballots would have far
more success. Alas, we have not been able to get that concept across.
I was also optimistic that Canada would follow through on the prime
minister's promise to abandon "first-past-the-post," but that has ended
with no reform because election-method reformers cannot agree on what to
replace FPTP with.
It seems simple enough to just do a New Zealand ballot:
- Do you want to change the voting method? (yes/no)
- If yes wins, what do you want to replace it with? (use either
Plurality or Approval for the meta-election method here)
On 2/8/2017 1:59 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
It seems simple enough to just do a New Zealand ballot:
- Do you want to change the voting method? (yes/no)
- If yes wins, what do you want to replace it with? (use either
Plurality or Approval for the meta-election method here)
Nope. In order to make the decision fair, the final vote needs to be
yes/no. That means the method needs to be picked first.
Yes, all of us here know that just about any method is better than
single-mark ballots.
And yet, look at what Ontario (a province in Canada) did years ago. They
formed a citizens committee and rigged it in favor of closed-list PR --
which still uses single-mark ballots! -- and then the yes/no vote among
all voters yielded a no-change result. Thank goodness! Because
closed-list PR is worse than what Canada already uses.
As I recall, one of the recent popular ideas in Canada was to use 3-seat
STV. That's not going to yield proportional results in Canada where
there are 3 or 4 main parties. In my opinion it takes about 5 seats
before STV becomes proportional.
In other words there are so many choices and sub-choices that voting
about voting is not going to yield a meaningful result. Instead, as
happened in Burlington VT, money will support whichever election method
keeps control in the hands of people who can use money to undermine
election results.
Richard Fobes
On 2/8/2017 1:59 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
On 02/08/2017 05:03 AM, VoteFair wrote:
On 2/7/2017 4:03 PM, Monkey Puzzle wrote:
I've actually become more optimistic recently. I think the
opportunity for reform is actually brighter now than it would have
been had Trump lost.
Just after the election I too was hopeful.
However I have lost that optimism as a result of seeing that most voters
have become distracted by other, less-important, election issues, such
as voter suppression, "fake news," Russian hacking, gerrymandering,
electoral college votes, cabinet-member choices, etc.
Compared to those issues, banning single-mark ballots would have far
more success. Alas, we have not been able to get that concept across.
I was also optimistic that Canada would follow through on the prime
minister's promise to abandon "first-past-the-post," but that has ended
with no reform because election-method reformers cannot agree on what to
replace FPTP with.
It seems simple enough to just do a New Zealand ballot:
- Do you want to change the voting method? (yes/no)
- If yes wins, what do you want to replace it with? (use either
Plurality or Approval for the meta-election method here)
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: [EM] Am I still subscribed?
From: "VoteFair" electionmethods@votefair.org
Date: Thu, February 9, 2017 1:39 am
To: "election-methods@lists.electorama.com" election-methods@lists.electorama.com
On 2/8/2017 1:59 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
It seems simple enough to just do a New Zealand ballot:
- Do you want to change the voting method? (yes/no)
- If yes wins, what do you want to replace it with? (use either
Plurality or Approval for the meta-election method here)
Nope. In order to make the decision fair, the final vote needs to be
yes/no. That means the method needs to be picked first.
well, no. �this is just like saying "no" is one of the run-off finalists and the other finalist must be picked first.
but if "no" is just one option among the other voting methods to choose from, then this compound decision resolves exactly the same as
ranking all of the options (including the "no" option) and, if there is a Condorcet winner, choosing the Condorcet winner. �(if there isn't an Condorcet winner, that means the voting body prefer something over "no". �but if there is a Condorcet winner among all
options, that resolves the same as everyone choosing the "yes" option first (using Condorcet) and then stacking that up against "no" and see which option the voters decide.
this is why i like Condorcet so much (and why i worry less about the cycle). �Condorcet makes
all of the options, including the status quo, all positioned on a flat playing field.
r b-j � � � � � � � � �rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
On 02/09/2017 08:26 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: [EM] Am I still subscribed?
From: "VoteFair" electionmethods@votefair.org
Date: Thu, February 9, 2017 1:39 am
To: "election-methods@lists.electorama.com"
election-methods@lists.electorama.com
On 2/8/2017 1:59 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
It seems simple enough to just do a New Zealand ballot:
- Do you want to change the voting method? (yes/no)
- If yes wins, what do you want to replace it with? (use either
Plurality or Approval for the meta-election method here)
Nope. In order to make the decision fair, the final vote needs to be
yes/no. That means the method needs to be picked first.
well, no. this is just like saying "no" is one of the run-off finalists
and the other finalist must be picked first.
but if "no" is just one option among the other voting methods to choose
from, then this compound decision resolves exactly the same as ranking
all of the options (including the "no" option) and, if there is a
Condorcet winner, choosing the Condorcet winner. (if there isn't an
Condorcet winner, that means the voting body prefer something over
"no". but if there is a Condorcet winner among all options, that
resolves the same as everyone choosing the "yes" option first (using
Condorcet) and then stacking that up against "no" and see which option
the voters decide.
this is why i like Condorcet so much (and why i worry less about the
cycle). Condorcet makes all of the options, including the status quo,
all positioned on a flat playing field.
A Condorcet-in-spirit referendum system could go like this:
- Order the options randomly.
- Ask a yes/no about whether the voters prefer the first option to the
second. - Ask a yes/no about whether the voters prefer the winner of the
previous round to the third option. - ... and so on up to the last option, asking a yes/no about the winner
of the last round compared to the kth option.
Whichever option wins is the overall winner, and it must be the CW if it
exists (and voters never change their minds between the rounds). The
cycle tiebreaker is in effect to pick a random option in the Smith set.
But it's really cumbersome.