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?

[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.

[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.

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 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!

[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.

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.

[merlinpole.livejournal.com]

Why should he bother? Are you going to pay him more than his day job?

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

The discussion on this has gone far and wide, and I see that it's been read by a bunch of people who are not on LJ, some who can't read it (work restrictions) and have made do with messages forwarded to them, some who can read but can't post for various reasons.* From among this last group I got some good comments, which I'll partially quote here:

...A voting system can be as brilliant as you want, but if people don't understand how the result is reached then they won't believe it is fair. As far as most people are concerned, the definition of a "fair" voting system is "one in which my favorite candidate wins". If their candidate doesn't win, and they can't understand the voting system, then they will claim that the voting system is unfair. (As you noted, this happens when the first round leader doesn't win in the Hugos.) [...]

...The issue with selecting the "best" voting system is not selecting the one which results in the best reflection of people's desires, but one that achieves the best balance between that aim and people having confidence in the voting system. If a voting system is sufficiently hard to understand then people will not have confidence in it and will keep assuming that the result is flawed.

This all makes sense to me. Indeed, it partially explains why any system other than "first past the post" is a hard sell -- if the people using the system don't have sufficient confidence in it, the system is a failure. To have sufficient confidence, they have to be able to understand it. It doesn't matter if you're mathematically perfect; if you can't explain it in terms that Joe Six-Pack understands, you're doomed.

____________
*I preemptively rule that a discussion on why people can or cannot read or post messages here is out of order. Take my word for it. I'll delete comments on the subject of ability-to-read-or-post. If you want to discuss it with me, write to me directly or go start your own topic in your own LJ.

[thebrokenladder.livejournal.com]

Okay folks, I've enjoyed going a few rounds with you. I've had time to address 70% of the customary newbie misconceptions that I always hear when introducing new groups to Range Voting, like the myth that one can't vote "strategically" with IRV (there's no incentive not to vote honestly). Now I'm just beating a dead horse.

BUT...voting method researchers could benefit immensely if you would publish your ballots using numbers instead of names (to totally preserve anonymity). There are advocates of Condorcet and Approval voting as well, and I'm sure they'd also enjoy access to this information. It would be cool to contribute to science by making it available, if it wouldn't be any real investment of resources on your part (which I would hope it wouldn't be).

If you have any interest in that, please email me at thebrokenladder@gmail.com.

Best wishes to everyone, and again thank you for the lively debate.

Clay