kevin_standlee | Range Voting

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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

We care, because we care about science, and basing decisions of evidence and not dogma. We figured that would fit right in line with the goals of a bunch of sci-fi buffs.

How you can possibly think that Range Voting is "harder to understand" than IRV is completely beyond me. THOUSANDS of web sites use ratings systems, like 1-5 stars, and present the average. But how many systems use IRV? Range Voting is more than just leaps and bounds better, it's simpler.

And what does corruption in the Olympics have to do with Range Voting? Guilt by association? Considering that Range Voting produces greater social utility efficiency even when EVERY SINGLE VOTER is 100% DISHONESTLY STRATEGIC than IRV produces if EVERY SINGL EVOTER is 100% HONEST, we'd make the obvious case that Range Voting PREVENTS the bad effects of corruption.

And I'd encourage you to research this a little better, before you discount a process which would give you vastly better results.

How about a vote on how people feel about the term "sci-fi" and being called a "sci-fi buff"

I detest the term...

We figured that would fit right in line with the goals of a bunch of sci-fi buffs.

Congratulations. You happened to hit a shibboleth of SF fandom that shows how little you know the audience to which you were trying to sell yourself. You just stepped on a semantic land mine.

One uniquely appropriate to the discussion, as a matter of fact. The way RV is being promoted has a lot in common with Forry's promotion of "sci-fi."

Of course, Forry was already an established and well-connected member of the community at the time. Forry survived the fights and the arguments with his reputation intact, but his name for the genre still carries a taint even though the origin of that taint has been almost forgotten.

A person's reputation is irrelevant to the scientific analysis of his proposition. To judge Range Voting on how much you like my personality is to practice an ad hominem logical fallacy. That's irrational. That's not science. Can't we all agree that a rational, scientific analysis is the best kind?

A person's reputation is irrelevant to the scientific analysis of his proposition.

This isn't a technocracy.

In a democratically-run society, particularly one run on "Town Meeting" democratic principles, reputation may have nothing to do with "scientific analysis" of a proposition but it has a lot to do with whether said proposition will ever be adopted.

Politics is messy that way.

Because humans choose to behave irrationally instead of scientifically. Sigh.

Yes! Exactly! You Got It! Congratulations!

Yes.

For example, humans might even behave irrationally and feel, y'know, insulted by your comment.

Well, people need to suck it up and face reality. It's not always pleasant to find out you have cancer, but if you ignore it and don't go to the doctor, it's gonna get more unpleasant.

people need to suck it up and face reality

This is truer than you probably realize.

So go for it. Suck it up and change your election method.

You really are that stupid, aren't you?

You spent several years sitting behind Worldcon bidding desks, as I have done. As I'm sure you recall, this makes you a captive audience for a bunch of people, including those whose grip on reality is, shall we say, slightly askew from the rest of us. Surely you've encountered people with "fannish Aspberger's Syndrome"?

Old broken-record there actually is very fannish. He's intense, dedicated, and incapable of realizing how obnoxious he's being.

You keep talking about science.

Looking at the range voting pages you refer to, I see the same word all over the place: "assumption". I see no actual studies of the use of range voting, only computer simulations based on assumptions.

Assumptions are not scientific evidence.

Well, Range Voting is monotonic, and FBLE compliant and IIA compliant - these things are all considered significant in voting method science, and this is not based on any assumptions; these things are mathematically provable.

When doing social utility efficiency calculations, we have to make assumptions about what percentage of voters are strategic vs. honest, and informed vs. ignorant, and how many candidates will run in the election, etc. etc. The point is that we varied these assumptions from 100% strategic, over a range to 100% honest, and the same with the other variables. In all of the combinations of parameters, Range Voting beat out the other systems. So don't take the word "assumption" the wrong way. The point is that Range Voting hugely outperforms other methods, no matter what we assume. If we assume that voters will be 100% informed about the candidates but also 100% strategic instead of honest, Range Voting kills the other methods. If we assume 50% of voters will be strategic and 50% will be honest, Range Voting kills the other methods. What Warren Smith expected, when he started out doing these simulations, is that in some models, Range Voting would win, but in other models it would lose, and then it would be a process of trying to find out which of those assumptions was the most like reality, so that we could determine which voting methods really were best. But quite to his surprise, Range Voting won in all of them, like I said. That's why he became such a zealous promoter of this method, and why I think quite highly of it also. Then the more you learn about it, the more wonderful properties it exhibits. It can be done on standard voting machines, IRV can't. Things like that. They just all add up, and then it becomes overwhelming.

And mind you, our real world exit polls show that Range Voting is easy to use - yes, even for voters in a small town in southeast Texas - and that it produces more fair representation of minor parties and independents.

Check out recent results from our online poll, with 1500 people: http://RangeVoting.org/2008.html and see how much better minor party candidates do, because there's not a significant incentive not to give them sincere ratings.

Range Voting

Re: Range Voting

Re: Range Voting

Re: Range Voting

Re: Range Voting

Re: Range Voting

Re: Range Voting

Re: Range Voting

Re: Range Voting

Re: Range Voting

Re: Range Voting

Re: Range Voting

Re: Range Voting

Re: Range Voting

Re: Range Voting

Re: Range Voting

Re: Range Voting