> Actually I don't see where we, the fans and people who would end up doing the work, would stand to benefit.
Okay, imagine you are in a deli for lunch, and there are exactly three sandwiches you can get (assume all cost the same). Say you like sandwich B a lot more than sandwich A, and you like sandwich C as much over B as you like B over A. Got it? Now, imagine that the shop keeper was so bad with English, that every time you tried to tell him you wanted sandwich C, you got sandwich B. Not bad, but certainly less satisfactory. THIS is EXACTLY what you are doing by using IRV instead of Range Voting. So just like you'd want to get a better communication method with the deli guy, so you could get a LOT more additional satisfaction, you WANT Range Voting, because that's what it will do for you. It will pick more satisfying results, by a LOT. It is almost as big an improvement over IRV as IRV is over RANDOM SELECTION. Read that again. Process. Make sure you get it. You are missing out enormously by refusing to chose a superior selection method, just like you'd miss out horribly by refusing to choose a better sandwich selection method (like say, pointing to the menu, instead of speaking).
> I doubt it would add to the comprehensibleness of the system, the results, or acceptance of them.
Then I encourage you to study voting methods further, and read http://RangeVoting.org/vsr.html and http://RangeVoting.org/BayRegDum.html and http://RangeVoting.org/UniqBest.html
> It also would add considerably to the complexity of trying to tally the vote
NO! WRONG! Have you never seen how IRV works? You total all the votes, over and over again, in rounds, until there's either a majority, or at least a plurality winner (depending on whether voters are required to list every single candidate on their ballots). So you effectively have to total the entire election multiple times, depending on how long it takes to get to a "majority" winner (which may not actually be the Condorcet winner at all).
With Range Voting, you just do ONE tally. ONE, and you are done. You can do it on ordinary plurality voting machines. See: http://zohopolls.com/us/pres for instance. Try that poll with IRV! It would be NUTS.
> Meanwhile you get us to be yet another on your list of groups that use your spiffy system while you lobby groups and governments to adopt it.
Obviously you won't be on our list of endorsers if you don't have good experiences with the system, don't you think?
> You're not unlike the consultants who come around trying to sell companies on nifty new systems for getting work done like sigma six. You won't actually care about any problems or expenses we incur in implementing your suggestion.
You're being too cynical. Range Voting is simpler and cheaper to use than IRV, which is a benefit to you, not a detriment.
> And likely you'd dismiss them as well worth it, after all it won't be like you actually had to DO anything.
If you guys studied this issue enough to see the obvious superiority of Range Voting, I can promise you that we'd help you however we could. I mean, I don't have THAT much to give...I'm an aspiring musician in Seattle, certainly not wealthy. But we could try to help you with any questions or logistics issues.
> I'd be only slightly less skeptical if you were a tiny white dog trying to sell me on your latest business strategy using all the power buzzwords most popular with middle managers.
You can be as skeptical as you want. But being skeptical means making up your mind on the basis of the facts, not dogmatically disbelieving. Look at the social utility efficiencies of the various voting methods. You can even do your own crude simulations using a spreadsheet and some simple formulas -- I've done it for quick test results to satisfy my own curiosity. Our utility calculations are arguably the most rigorous that have been done by ANY election systems researchers EVER.
And the bottom line is this, you tell me ANY way in which you think IRV is better than Range Voting, and I'll prove you wrong. You name it. You want science, I'll give you science. I say the world is round.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: Missing the point
Date: 2007-01-23 05:36 am (UTC)Okay, imagine you are in a deli for lunch, and there are exactly three sandwiches you can get (assume all cost the same). Say you like sandwich B a lot more than sandwich A, and you like sandwich C as much over B as you like B over A. Got it? Now, imagine that the shop keeper was so bad with English, that every time you tried to tell him you wanted sandwich C, you got sandwich B. Not bad, but certainly less satisfactory. THIS is EXACTLY what you are doing by using IRV instead of Range Voting. So just like you'd want to get a better communication method with the deli guy, so you could get a LOT more additional satisfaction, you WANT Range Voting, because that's what it will do for you. It will pick more satisfying results, by a LOT. It is almost as big an improvement over IRV as IRV is over RANDOM SELECTION. Read that again. Process. Make sure you get it. You are missing out enormously by refusing to chose a superior selection method, just like you'd miss out horribly by refusing to choose a better sandwich selection method (like say, pointing to the menu, instead of speaking).
> I doubt it would add to the comprehensibleness of the system, the results, or acceptance of them.
Then I encourage you to study voting methods further, and read http://RangeVoting.org/vsr.html and http://RangeVoting.org/BayRegDum.html and http://RangeVoting.org/UniqBest.html
> It also would add considerably to the complexity of trying to tally the vote
NO! WRONG! Have you never seen how IRV works? You total all the votes, over and over again, in rounds, until there's either a majority, or at least a plurality winner (depending on whether voters are required to list every single candidate on their ballots). So you effectively have to total the entire election multiple times, depending on how long it takes to get to a "majority" winner (which may not actually be the Condorcet winner at all).
With Range Voting, you just do ONE tally. ONE, and you are done. You can do it on ordinary plurality voting machines. See: http://zohopolls.com/us/pres for instance. Try that poll with IRV! It would be NUTS.
> Meanwhile you get us to be yet another on your list of groups that use your spiffy system while you lobby groups and governments to adopt it.
Obviously you won't be on our list of endorsers if you don't have good experiences with the system, don't you think?
> You're not unlike the consultants who come around trying to sell companies on nifty new systems for getting work done like sigma six. You won't actually care about any problems or expenses we incur in implementing your suggestion.
You're being too cynical. Range Voting is simpler and cheaper to use than IRV, which is a benefit to you, not a detriment.
> And likely you'd dismiss them as well worth it, after all it won't be like you actually had to DO anything.
If you guys studied this issue enough to see the obvious superiority of Range Voting, I can promise you that we'd help you however we could. I mean, I don't have THAT much to give...I'm an aspiring musician in Seattle, certainly not wealthy. But we could try to help you with any questions or logistics issues.
> I'd be only slightly less skeptical if you were a tiny white dog trying to sell me on your latest business strategy using all the power buzzwords most popular with middle managers.
You can be as skeptical as you want. But being skeptical means making up your mind on the basis of the facts, not dogmatically disbelieving. Look at the social utility efficiencies of the various voting methods. You can even do your own crude simulations using a spreadsheet and some simple formulas -- I've done it for quick test results to satisfy my own curiosity. Our utility calculations are arguably the most rigorous that have been done by ANY election systems researchers EVER.
And the bottom line is this, you tell me ANY way in which you think IRV is better than Range Voting, and I'll prove you wrong. You name it. You want science, I'll give you science. I say the world is round.
CLAY