tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3706185.post8889913812469375640..comments2023-10-28T04:04:43.525-05:00Comments on Easter Lemming Liberal News: Voting NewsGaryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17414725749450659875noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3706185.post-28916738789320978662007-12-19T11:39:00.000-06:002007-12-19T11:39:00.000-06:00Again, Jack Boyd perfectly demonstrates the decept...Again, Jack Boyd perfectly demonstrates the deceptive nature of the IRV advocacy. His points are a list of fallacies. Let's run through them.<BR/><BR/>First he notes that IRV is widely used. This is a well-known type of logical fallacy called "appeal to popularity". To make the problem more clear, does Jack think that our standard plurality voting system is better than IRV because it's more commonly used throughout the world?<BR/><BR/>Regarding costs, here are San Francisco's <A HREF="http://www.sfgov.org/site/electionscommission_page.asp?id=42222" REL="nofollow">election allocations</A> for the past decade, and I don't see any major decrease in the cost-per-election. And I mentioned above a University of Vermont study which finds IRV to be more costly in general.<BR/><BR/>Also, you might have missed this headline:<BR/><BR/><B>San Francisco forecasts doubling their budget in 2007-2008. San Francisco’s higher expenses include special voting software, special poll worker training, more laborious and costly recounts, and IRV related voter education costing about $1.87 per registered voter.</B><BR/><BR/>Boyd's final point is a straw man. No voting method, not even Range Voting, is "strategy free" - and we never claimed it was, so you're pretending we said something we didn't. The point is that Range Voting is much less susceptible to harm caused by <A HREF="http://rangevoting.orgStratHonMix.html" REL="nofollow">strategic voting</A>. In fact Range Voting is approximately as good with 100% strategic voters, as IRV is with 100% honest voters. That's simply an enormous difference in quality.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3706185.post-11797838943724660302007-12-18T15:38:00.000-06:002007-12-18T15:38:00.000-06:00Clay Shentrup hurls a lot of accusations here, but...Clay Shentrup hurls a lot of accusations here, but IRV is "peddled" by a whole lot of serious people and is widely used by serious people in real elections.<BR/><BR/>On costs,San Francisco has saved a lot of money by not having to hold runoffs (runoff cost a lot more than the transitions costs to IRV), and election officials in North Carolina seem very pleased with how IRV worked in saving money.<BR/><BR/>On range voting's wonderful strategy-free elements, tell that to corrupt ice skating judges who have had so much fun manipulating the system.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3706185.post-23532033130849028232007-12-18T00:48:00.000-06:002007-12-18T00:48:00.000-06:00Gary,Many experts believe IRV would cost more, rat...Gary,<BR/><BR/>Many experts believe IRV would <A HREF="http://rangevoting.org/VermontIrvCost.html" REL="nofollow">cost more</A>, rather than save money.<BR/><BR/>As for strategic/insincere voting, it doesn't matter if just as many people do it with Range Voting than with IRV. Even if <I>more</I> people vote strategically with Range Voting, it has properties which mitigate the harm of this behavior.<BR/><BR/>Warren Smith's <A HREF="http://rangevoting.org/StratHonMix.html" REL="nofollow">Bayesian regret</A> figures show that Range Voting is approximately as good with 100% strategic voters, as IRV is with 100% <I>honest</I> voters.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3706185.post-77702731940397446212007-12-18T00:44:00.000-06:002007-12-18T00:44:00.000-06:00Jack Boyd is a good example of the sadly misled (o...Jack Boyd is a good example of the sadly misled (or possibly outright dishonest) Instant Runoff Voting community. IRV doesn't really require a "majority" to win. It can easily elect candidate X, even though candidate Y was preferred to X by a <A HREF="http://rangevoting.org/CoreSupp.html" REL="nofollow">sizable majority</A>. (This has been pointed out to leaders in the IRV community zillions of times, but they still repeat the same misleading talking points.)<BR/><BR/>Jack also repeats the myth that proportional representation is required to break up duopoly. In reality <A HREF="http://rangevoting.org/StratHonMix.html" REL="nofollow">genuine runoff</A> elections (not "instant") have broken up duopoly in 24 of the 27 countries that use them. And Range Voting, and its simplified form Approval Voting, both would plausibly have an even stronger anti-duopoly effect.<BR/><BR/>Jack's assertion that Range Voting "doesn't have any facts" simply shows a contempt for the wealth of accumulated scientific knowledge in the field of election theory. Warren D. Smith, the Princeton math Ph.D. who co-founded the Center for Range Voting, has refuted such claims with a litany of <A HREF="http://rangevoting.org/CFERlet.html" REL="nofollow">powerful facts</A>, including the world's most extensive computerized <A HREF="http://rangevoting.org/StratHonMix.html" REL="nofollow">election simulations</A><BR/><BR/>Also let us not forget the substantial use of Approval Voting, the simplest form of Range Voting. It is just like our current system, except that we change the "vote for one" rule to "vote for one, or more". AV is used in the U.N., and was used for over 500 years in Venice, achieving some of the most harmonious periods in government ever known; until Napoleon came and tossed it.<BR/><BR/>Approval Voting is also used in several organizations, such as the American Mathematical Society, with tens of thousands of members -- <I>more than many cities</I>. And it has been promoted since the 70's by NYU's Steven Brams, one of the foremost experts in game theory and fair distribution schemes.<BR/><BR/>The people peddling IRV are not experts or scientists in any regard. They are political operatives with a specific mission to get proportional representation via any means necessary. And since they see IRV as a stepping stone to the STV system of proportional voting (which is probably mistaken, given the political realities of American politics), they want to implement IRV no matter how disruptive it might be.<BR/><BR/>The facts as understood by experts in the field of election theory, rigorously support Range Voting. The strategy of IRV enthusiasts is to deny the importance of those facts, and use misleading and <A HREF="http://rangevoting.org/Irvtalk.html" REL="nofollow">even false</A> propaganda. Jack Boyd demonstrates this, as he unabashedly writes off the findings of credentialed experts who have devoted years of their lives scientifically studying this issue, with a scientific agenda rather than a political one.<BR/><BR/>CLAY SHENTRUP<BR/>clay@electopia.org<BR/>415.240.1973Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3706185.post-8365988372730763212007-12-18T00:04:00.000-06:002007-12-18T00:04:00.000-06:00Interesting experiment in the recent French electi...Interesting experiment in the recent French election.<BR/><BR/>http://rangevoting.org/OrsayTable.htmlGaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17414725749450659875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3706185.post-46860111647448609802007-12-17T23:57:00.000-06:002007-12-17T23:57:00.000-06:00Two special pleadings very quickly after posting.T...Two special pleadings very quickly after posting.<BR/><BR/>There is really no question that IRV would save money. The issues with spoiled ballots and centralized counting I think are red herrings.<BR/><BR/>There was a lot of argument from third parties to go to IRV. It seems clear that IRV does preserve duopoly. <BR/><BR/>True, range voting doesn't have much history. I think a better argument might be are voters really sure and giving true rankings. Wouldn't they game the system as much as with IRV? I haven't looked at all the papers enough to answer that confidently.Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17414725749450659875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3706185.post-1974393625080446802007-12-17T23:28:00.000-06:002007-12-17T23:28:00.000-06:00The facts are just fine for instant runoff voting,...The facts are just fine for instant runoff voting, thank you! Check out www.instantrunoffcom<BR/><BR/>Sure, it takes a majority to win. If you want to bust up duopoly representation, go for for proportional representation.<BR/><BR/>Range voting of course doesn't have any facts to test It's only used for things like figure skating, and that's full of enough controversy to make me skeptical.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3706185.post-80274783064129401722007-12-17T22:15:00.000-06:002007-12-17T22:15:00.000-06:00The claim that IRV is better than plurality is que...The claim that IRV is better than plurality is questionable, since it increases the rate of spoiled ballots by a <A HREF="http://rangevoting.org/SPRates.html" REL="nofollow">factor of 7</A>, and incentivizes the implementation of fraud-prone (electronic) voting machines, and cannot be counted in precincts (and therefore requires central tabulation that makes counting less transparent and more prone to a central fraud conspiracy).<BR/><BR/>Is this made up for by the fact that it would help with most spoiled races like the Nader fiasco? It's really hard to say for sure.<BR/><BR/>But Range Voting does not have these problems, and it has a hugely better <A HREF="http://rangevoting.org/BayRegDum.html" REL="nofollow">Bayesian regret</A> (economic measure of how well a voting method satisfies voter preferences).<BR/><BR/>It is also not clear that IRV saves money. This claim is based on the idea of replacing runoff elections with IRV. But considering that runoff elections are not always required in the first place, and taking into account the long-term costs of voter education and the like, <A HREF="http://rangevoting.org/VermontIrvCost.html" REL="nofollow">some estimates</A> say that IRV might actually be <I>more</I> costly. That would certainly not be the case with Range Voting.<BR/><BR/>Here's a great Range Voting write-up on <A HREF="http://www.newsweek.com/id/78467/page/1" REL="nofollow">Newsweek</A>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com