> If range voting is kind of a Condorcet method - and I can see that - then I definitely prefer Condorcet.
Well, you actually do not prefer Condorcet. You'll be less happy with the results of elections if you use Condorcet. There is of course the off chance that you'll say, "Man, I loved voting with Condorcet so much more than voting with Range Voting, that it's worth getting a crappy president", but then you'd be pretty abnormal. If you just want a voting method to be fun, regardless of its quality, then I assure you, I can think of some fun ways to vote. Throwing darts at balloons on a wall, with the names of candidates inside is fun. You should vote like that.
> Do you have any idea how much that makes you sound like a Scientologist?
How ironic, considering how much time I've spent heckling Scientologists, and going into their little tents and causing a scene. I actually included Xenu in my Range Voting poll for the 2008 US Presidential election, and he's coming in last place. http://zohopolls.com/us/pres
> We in science fiction fandom have good and long reason to be wary of that kind of starry-eyed insistence that perfection has been found
I specifically showed an example scenario of an election where Range Voting would produce a very poor winner. So clearly I know it's not perfect. It's just a huge improvement over IRV. You are making a straw man argument here.
I suggest you read a book by Carl Sagan called "Demon-Haunted World: Using Science as a Candle in the Dark", if you like science as much as science fiction. I take Sagan's view (that seems to sort of be shared by my personal hero, Richard Dawkins) that irrational beliefs aren't just sort of mildly annoying, but dangerous...pernicious. I therefore care less about whether you actually USE Range Voting, and more about whether you are educated about it, such that you make the correct conclusion, that it is the best common voting method (I say "common" because we are excluding insanely complicated methods like CTT voting, that some genius economists created).
It's like when I was in 6th grade, and my teacher taught us there was an "Antarctic Ocean" in addition the four "real" oceans. Now, of course the concept of distinct oceans is arbitrary, since they have no physical boundaries. But I knew that the mainstream consensus was, Actic, Pacific, Atlantic, Indian. FOUR oceans. I told my teacher he was wrong. Everyone mocked me. I could have avoided that reaction by just not correcting him. But no way was I going to let that go, because then he'd just go around believing that, carrying around that false meme in his head. So I came the next day with the encyclopedia and proved him wrong. I fixed the broken-ness. It's the same reason I'm trying to get all my friends to use vorbis instead of mp3, and the same reason I use dvorak, and the same reason I'm trying to get you to use a better voting method. To fix things that are incorrect. Maybe you're not neurotic enough to relate. Shrug.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: Supermajority vote?
Date: 2007-01-24 03:28 am (UTC)Well, you actually do not prefer Condorcet. You'll be less happy with the results of elections if you use Condorcet. There is of course the off chance that you'll say, "Man, I loved voting with Condorcet so much more than voting with Range Voting, that it's worth getting a crappy president", but then you'd be pretty abnormal. If you just want a voting method to be fun, regardless of its quality, then I assure you, I can think of some fun ways to vote. Throwing darts at balloons on a wall, with the names of candidates inside is fun. You should vote like that.
> Do you have any idea how much that makes you sound like a Scientologist?
How ironic, considering how much time I've spent heckling Scientologists, and going into their little tents and causing a scene. I actually included Xenu in my Range Voting poll for the 2008 US Presidential election, and he's coming in last place. http://zohopolls.com/us/pres
> We in science fiction fandom have good and long reason to be wary of that kind of starry-eyed insistence that perfection has been found
I specifically showed an example scenario of an election where Range Voting would produce a very poor winner. So clearly I know it's not perfect. It's just a huge improvement over IRV. You are making a straw man argument here.
I suggest you read a book by Carl Sagan called "Demon-Haunted World: Using Science as a Candle in the Dark", if you like science as much as science fiction. I take Sagan's view (that seems to sort of be shared by my personal hero, Richard Dawkins) that irrational beliefs aren't just sort of mildly annoying, but dangerous...pernicious. I therefore care less about whether you actually USE Range Voting, and more about whether you are educated about it, such that you make the correct conclusion, that it is the best common voting method (I say "common" because we are excluding insanely complicated methods like CTT voting, that some genius economists created).
It's like when I was in 6th grade, and my teacher taught us there was an "Antarctic Ocean" in addition the four "real" oceans. Now, of course the concept of distinct oceans is arbitrary, since they have no physical boundaries. But I knew that the mainstream consensus was, Actic, Pacific, Atlantic, Indian. FOUR oceans. I told my teacher he was wrong. Everyone mocked me. I could have avoided that reaction by just not correcting him. But no way was I going to let that go, because then he'd just go around believing that, carrying around that false meme in his head. So I came the next day with the encyclopedia and proved him wrong. I fixed the broken-ness. It's the same reason I'm trying to get all my friends to use vorbis instead of mp3, and the same reason I use dvorak, and the same reason I'm trying to get you to use a better voting method. To fix things that are incorrect. Maybe you're not neurotic enough to relate. Shrug.