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

[dd-b.livejournal.com]

And I'd never even seen "range voting" before. Looks like it kinda makes sense. Not that I'm about to start showing up at WSFS business meetings to push it; I'm happy enough with our system. But it's nice to learn about new schemes.

[purpleranger.livejournal.com]

And were these advocates SF fans who also happen to think that range voting is a Really Nifty Idea, or are they just trying to force their idea on us, whether it's a Really Nifty Idea or not?

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

I don't know. I don't recognize their names, so I tend to expect the latter. On the other hand, their attitude struck me as somewhat fannish, in the negative sense. I could easily be reading too much into what they wrote, however.

[debgeisler.livejournal.com]

WSFS rules are intentionally designed to be resistant to change...

As are any sensible body's rules. Making standing rules *easy* to change would be like trying to play the World Series of Poker using the entropic rulebook of Fizzbin.

It might be fun to watch, but getting anywhere would be a nightmare.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

Oh, I know, but I'm responding to complaints that it's "too hard" to change the WSFS rules. What I think at least some of the complainers usually mean is, "You should change things to be the way I want them to be, without me having to work very hard, and then you should never change them again."

[johnnyeponymous.livejournal.com]

I dunno. I think rules need to be firm, but changable in the face of time and circumstance. There are a lot of instances where an old line can put the kibosh on something despite a significant movement behind things. I'm not specifically talking about WSFS stuff, I've never made a full business meeting, but I've seen in in various fannish and non-fannish groups.

Personally, I like range voting. I've even used it in various situations very impressively, including at the museum. I like the weight method, but I have issues with the difficulty it can present to voters who are using it for the first few times. It also takes longer to vote, but I really think it makes things much clearer.
Chris

[kproche.livejournal.com]

Lord. We have enough trouble getting folks do our relativley simple preferential ballots!

And I poked around on their site for about 5 minutes before my eyes started to bleed and my brains began to leak out of my ears.

Clearly, RV is their claw hammer and all elections are basic HDG nails. Urgh.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

I'm glad that you said "I'm not specifically talking about WSFS stuff," because I think the WSFS system strikes a good balance. A majority can get things changed, but only if they can muster that majority two years in a row. There is, in my opinion, nothing so critical affected by WSFS that can't wait for a second reading at a different location.

And movements need to be, as you say, "significant," not "Me and a couple of my friends want to talk really loud and you should do what we say because we said so." One of the rights of a super-majority is the right to not have their time wasted.

[redneckotaku.livejournal.com]

I have enough trouble figuring out five nominees (in the catagories I am nominating) for the Hugos. How would this make the nominating and voting process, easier? I just don't think this is workable.

[nitroace.livejournal.com]

I get it, but I'm with kproche, my eyes are bleeding and my brain is numb. Looking at their other options (and I'll admit I only glanced over the whole thing), they seem to really hate preferential (they call it "ranked voting").

[bovil.livejournal.com]

I'm very suspicious of their implementation, and because of that their advocacy. I work with a bunch of surveying wonks (academic researchers, natch) and use of "liker scales" is a big subject of discussion.

This RV web page erroneously compares range voting to Olympic scoring. If we discount the irrelevant (but amusing) fact that in Olympic scoring the highest and lowest scores are tossed (to prevent a single judge from skewing the average), we're still talking the difference between trained Olympic judges and the average voter.

A 10-point liker-scale is subject to a lot of pitfalls.

Olympic sports have complicated evaluation systems that judges use to select their scores. Elections don't. Most folks can't discriminate to a 10-point scale, much less the fractional-point system that Olympic judges use. They'll usually fall to using 9/5/0. Now that's not a big deal if everybody does that. But not everybody does.

With a large population, it's practically impossible to ensure that all participants use the liker scale in the same way. Voters have to not only be instructed in how range voting works, but also how they should select numbers. If some of the voters trend towards low numbers (i.e. they vote mostly 1, 2, 3 for their preferred candidates) and some trend towards high numbers (they vote mostly 9,8,7 for their preferred candidates) this will skew the results and the impact of their votes. Droping to a 4-point scale (0-3) loses a bit of granularity, but it's easier to get people using the numbers the same way.

The educational effort needed to make the range voting scheme advocated at rangevoting.org produce meaningful results would be enormous.

IRV has its pitfalls, but I think the range voting advocates are digging deep into the FUD to scare people about the possibility of vote manipulation.

[bovil.livejournal.com]

The idea is sound, but the suggested implementation is a disaster waiting to happen.

Range Voting

[lindadee.livejournal.com]

Considering how many DON'T understand our current system, I'd hate to have to try to explain why we'd be switching to a different one that's possibly even harder (for some) to understand.

What's their interest in what we do? Just intellectual argument (hah!) or are they trying to sell something? What difference does it make to them how we do OUR voting? Conidering how corrupt the Olympics voting has been in the past, I'll stick to our system, than you.

Linda

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

I'd go along with a switch in our counting system from IRV to Condorcet.

But uncontrolled range voting in a large, open, secret ballot election is nutty. A controlled point system would be better, but still a bad idea. Range voting should be limited to small judge systems where it belongs.

[sfrose.livejournal.com]

I agree. That's why I started my respoinse to them with:

"Thank you for your opinion."

[sfrose.livejournal.com]

I got the opinion that they weren't fans, but just advocates of Range Voting and may have done some web searching and found out that we use "IRV."

[sfrose.livejournal.com]

I found the most amusing part in the emails was their response to me when they said:

We can sit here and argue all day about which system is just a teeny bit simpler and easier than the other, but that's completely missing the point.  If you had an ear infection, would you rather take a tiny easy-to-swallow placebo, or a slightly larger REAL ANTIBIOTIC?  Hopefully you're sane, and you chose option B.  In that case, you should be supporting
range voting!

[mishalak.livejournal.com]

You are so much more level headed than I am. I would have said something along the lines of, "Go peddle your snake oil somewhere else," if I bothered to respond at all. This is why you make a good leader and I mostly make good entertainment. The only reason I keep being elected to high fannish office is that I'm the only one who volunteers.

[nwl.livejournal.com]

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.

Good for you. Stick to your position and make them provide their own case. I've never believed in "talking" for someone else. If it is a good idea, then the person advocating it should be the one to push it. If the person with the idea wants someone else to front it, I suspect there is something else going on.

I see this as an extension of the new fans vs. old fans debate.

[purpleranger.livejournal.com]

IRV? Is this their term for how WSFS conducts the Hugo balloting? And what does IRV stand for, anyway? I'm guessing the V is for Voting, but at the moment, I'm stumped on the I and the R.

[sfrose.livejournal.com]

IIRC, Instant Runoff Voting.

[sfrose.livejournal.com]

LOL! I think it is just many year of practice of being the online liaison, webmaster, and other electronic presence for fannish organizations and even work related jobs. I find that it is easier to try to be polite than to start off treating idiots like scum. Sometimes the private postings to others aren't as tactful...

I still think the funniest is when people write to the webmaster address touting what a good webmaster they would be. The webpages need flash and scripting, and other bells and whistles that the current webmaster obviously isn't capable of doing. Just who do they think is reading the webmaster email?

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

As Sharon said, it stands for Instant Runoff Voting, and that is indeed the currently-favored term for the form of preferential balloting we use. We've used different terms for it over time, but IRV is pretty good, because it succinctly describes what the system simulates.

Disaster?

[(Anonymous)]

How is it a disaster exactly? Range Voting produces vastly higher social utility efficiency, even when voters are 100% strategic.

Clay Shentrup
The Center for Range Voting
http://RangeVoting.org/

Missing the point

[brokenladder.videntity.org (from livejournal.com)]

You're missing the point. We weren't trying to say "Oh just trust us, you HAFTA do this!" My point was that we aren't the ones who stand to benefit from this - YOU are, so YOU should do it in order to help yourselves. We just think it would be cool, because we love Range Voting so much.

I spend hours every week working on getting the message out to Libertarians, Greens, and voting reformers in general. For instance, I just wrote this: http://reformthelp.org/issues/voting/range.php

I really wish I had time to go to Japan or where ever the next event is, but I don't. I was just hoping you'd get a sense of my passion for this issue, and investigate it, and realize it's to your own advantage to use it.

The Libertarian Reform Caucus, for example, has already come on board, and now uses Range Voting internally, for planks and rating essays and such. AND the advocate it for use in political elections.

So anyway, please understand why I take the perspective I do. I have limited resources.