Range Voting
Jan. 4th, 2007 12:19 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kevin_standleeThe folks advocating Range Voting contacted WSFS (actually, the WSFS webmaster, ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: Supermajority vote?
Date: 2007-01-23 04:58 am (UTC)It can be easily applied to Range Voting, and even to plurality voting with a little work, but NOT to IRV.
See: http://rangevoting.org/Rivest3B.html
In a nutshell, suppose the range of your Range Voting ballot is from -5 to +5. You get three ballots, and the sum of your scores for any one candidate is your score for that candidate (so obviously the scores can't sum to be higher than 5 or lower than -5, and a dumb machine verfies that). Then you get a certified copy of ONE of those ballots, and drop your ballots into a bin. Later, the results of EVERY ballot are publicly posted. You check that your ballot (the one you got to keep) matches what is publicly posted. Just having 1/3 of your full ballot means you can't prove how you voted, so you can't sell your vote. But if fraudsters try to cheat the system, and edit a ballot, there's a 1/3 chance they edit a ballot-third that someone took home a copy of, meaning they get caught. If they alter TWO ballots, there's a 5/9 chance the fraud is detectable. After a certain point, say 10 ballots, the odds of fraud being detectable, and with PROOF in hand (Hello, Mr. Dan Rather? I have a ballot here which doesn't match the publicly posted result) approach the mid 90's. Go up to a more significant number, and forget it. Fraudsters can't get away with it.
This is what people who are obsessed with voting methods cook up for fun.
CLAY
Re: Supermajority vote?
Date: 2007-01-23 05:09 am (UTC)Re: Supermajority vote?
Date: 2007-01-23 05:40 am (UTC)Interestingly, 3ballot turns out to work most naturally, securely, and simply, for approval voting and range voting. It still works – but less naturally, securely, and simply for plurality voting (the kind of voting currently most common throughout the USA and world) – and it essentially does not work at all for voting methods based on rank-order ballots such as instant runoff voting.
So, let's see you refute him please. Prove that it's possible. I'm pretty sure he's proven that it's not.
Re: Supermajority vote?
Date: 2007-01-23 03:21 pm (UTC)Re: Supermajority vote?
Date: 2007-01-23 05:16 pm (UTC)Maybe he could solve some of our unsolved puzzles http://www.rangevoting.org/PuzzlePage.html