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

[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.

[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?

[mishalak.livejournal.com]

I do try to be discriminate in the use of my cut rate Dorothy Parker personality. But people who don't have an excuse of being, for example a newbie or youthful, and come out with marvelous ideas that you should get to work on right away drive me nuts. This is volunteer work after all.

[thebrokenladder.livejournal.com]

I'm not asking you to do something selfless. You can adopt Range Voting for purely selfish reasons.

[mishalak.livejournal.com]

Let me break this down for you since you didn't understand what you replied to.

You: Procrustean evangelist who does not do work necessary to put on Worldcon or any other science fiction convention.

Us: The volunteers who actually put up our labor and money to put on science fiction conventions.

Now who's opinion of what needs to be our highest priority do you think will carry more weight? Particularly since you're unwilling to even work up a proposal, you just want us to study your tracts and then work at coming up with a way to implement Range Voting at Worldcon.

[thebrokenladder.livejournal.com]

You: Procrustean evangelist who does not do work necessary to put on Worldcon or any other science fiction convention.

Us: The volunteers who actually put up our labor and money to put on science fiction conventions.

You: People who are supposedly rational enough to do something that is in your own best interest.

Am I wrong?

since you're unwilling to even work up a proposal, you just want us to study your tracts and then work at coming up with a way to implement Range Voting at Worldcon.

The point isn't what I want you to do. The point is, you should want you to do this. I would be happy to help you draft a proposal, if you would decide to push for this. I would offer any academic resources possible.

[mishalak.livejournal.com]

If it be irrationality to reject making more work for myself then I am happy to be called irrational by the likes of you.

[thebrokenladder.livejournal.com]

Range Voting requires less work, not more work, than IRV. And if you're against work, why make the effort to vote at all? Since you don't care much about the outcome of the elections, just don't vote.

[(Anonymous)]

Well, it' not snake oil, it's a vastly better voting method. If you use IRV instead of Range Voting, you are shooting yourself in the foot, because YOU will be less happy with the result of the election, because IRV produces a substantially lower social utility efficiency than Range Voting.

See: http://rangevoting.org/IrvExec.html

Here is an example of how "dumb" IRV is:

Voting honestly in IRV can be worse for you than not voting at all
#voters their vote
7 B>G>N
6 G>B>N
5 N>G>B
3 N>G>B

In this 21-voter IRV election, B wins (by 15-to-8 after G is eliminated). But if the 3 voters in the last line had not voted, then G would have won (which those voters would have preferred). (Because N is eliminated then G beats B by 11-to-7.).