Range Voting

[kevin_standlee]

The folks advocating Range Voting contacted WSFS (actually, the WSFS webmaster, sfrose) lobbying WSFS to change its voting system from the Instant Runoff Voting system we currently use for site selection and the Hugo Awards. Sharon told them how our rules work and suggested that if they want to change them, they come to WSFS business meetings and propose and debate the changes there, like all other rule changes. The advocate's response, in my opinion, amounted to, "Our proposal is so obviously Right that we shouldn't have to do all that hard, expensive work. You should change your rules because we tell you to do so."

I often tell people who come to me with rules-change proposals, "If you think it's worthwhile, come and submit it yourself. I'll help you with all of the technicalities to the best of my ability, but you have to make your own case, lobby people yourself, and get the votes by convincing people." Most of the time, this discourages them -- democracy is hard work! But sometimes we get people who are willing to work and debate, and sometimes we even get workable changes and improvements.

WSFS rules are intentionally designed to be resistant to change; however, they can be changed if people work hard enough at it. But it's not enough to just lobby a Board of Directors or subvert the Chairman; you have to convince the members.

Comments

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

The question is not whether the IRV rules are a subset of the STV rules. I already agreed that they were, before you ever brought Wikipedia up. Yes, applying the STV rules to one seat amounts to IRV, I said so specifically, and I never said otherwise. That you apparently think I did shows your poor grasp of the argument.

The question is whether they are classified and terminologically described in political science as the same system. They are not, and I offered proof in the form of a poli sci citation. You offered Wikipedia, and the fact that you could say something like "proven wrong by Wikipedia" shows your ignorance and poor hold on both reality and argumentation. Wikipedia has a lot of useful and accurate information, but it is completely unreliable as proof of anything whatsoever. You'd be thrown out of class for using it as a citation of anything.

So if you "apply" STV to a one-seat election, you get IRV. AND YOU SHOULD CALL IT IRV, NOT STV. That was my original point in this thread. My original comment was not addressed to you, but to a curious bystander who was clearly uninterested in polisci trivia. And I'm sorry the fact that I didn't bother to mention to that person the complex relationship between the STV rules and IRV rules has confused your - again - poor overtaxed mind.

In the name "Single Transferable Vote," the word "transferable" refers to the surplus majority transfer. This has no place in IRV and consequently the name STV is totally inapplicable to IRV, despite the fact that all the rules of IRV do have a place in STV.

I dropped the discussion of the comparative virtues of systems not out of lack of counterarguments, but because you are completely impervious to the significance of the points that make you mistaken. See kevin_standlee's last comments, and see his next post. And indeed, I see you've gone on to claim that I am mistaken in my own personal preferences, so you've gone beyond all previous benchmarks of arrogance.

I thought I could continue to clarify this simple matter of terminological classification, but even there it turns out that your bewilderment is too great to overcome. Sorry.

[thebrokenladder.livejournal.com]

The question is whether they are classified and terminologically described in political science as the same system.

Yes, they are. They ARE THE SAME SYSTEM.

[thebrokenladder.livejournal.com]

So if you "apply" STV to a one-seat election, you get IRV. AND YOU SHOULD CALL IT IRV, NOT STV.

So there should be a different name for every different number of winners that you can use STV for? So if we're picking a council of 10 winners, that should have its own name, and if 20 winners, then that should have its own name too. You disagree? Then why arbitrarily decide that STV applied to a single winner race is somehow qualitatively different from one with two or three winners? It isn't.

Furthermore, this has nothing to do with the fact that IRV IS STV.

[thebrokenladder.livejournal.com]

you are completely impervious to the significance of the points that make you mistaken.

Name a single point that you believe makes me mistaken. Chances are I've already heard it and refuted it. There is not a single point where you could say that IRV is better than Range Voting. Not one, at least that's ever been presented yet.

And indeed, I see you've gone on to claim that I am mistaken in my own personal preferences, so you've gone beyond all previous benchmarks of arrogance.

Well, it's the truth. You'll derive significantly greater satisfaction if you use Range Voting. So to say you think IRV will make you more satisfied is wrong - unless you (bizarrely) feel that using IRV would be so much "fun" that it would make up for your dissatisfaction with the election results.

I thought I could continue to clarify this simple matter of terminological classification, but even there it turns out that your bewilderment is too great to overcome. Sorry.

IRV is STV. If I started calling it "Instant Duo Voting" whenever STV was used for two-seat elections, that wouldn't change the fact that we were still using STV, even if it was also called IDV. I'll keep calling myself a chordate, even though I'm a mammal, and a human. I hope that doesn't bewilder you too much.