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

[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

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

voting method researchers could benefit immensely if you would publish your ballots using numbers instead of names (to totally preserve anonymity

Oh, I can just imagine the furor at a WSFS Business Meeting if anyone tried to do that. I got yelled at in 1995 when I tried to ask site selection voters which region (there are four) they were from, and WSFS passed a resolution saying it was inappropriate. Yes, I know you say it would "preserve anonymity" but remember, people don't act rationally.

Worldcons publish detailed Hugo voting counts. Sometimes, they even put those counts online, like Noreascon Four did. I don't know if that gives you enough detail to be useful or not.

[thebrokenladder.livejournal.com]

Thank you for that data!!