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: Missing the point
Date: 2007-01-23 06:40 am (UTC)The computer simulations don't say that bumblebee's can't fly away. They say that range voting has the greatest social utility efficiency.
Clay
Re: Missing the point
Date: 2007-01-23 12:11 pm (UTC)For example you used examples that are not anything like the elections we run. We don't get 40 candidates. We are often faced with a soviet ballot where there is exactly one eligible group bidding to host Worldcon in a particular year. Three is about the maximum and two is more typical. You don't know anything about our group or how it works, you've just parachuted in without doing research about us and demand that we research your system.
But hey, life wouldn't be fun if we didn't regularly get wingnuts telling us that everything we're doing is wrong. It is a pretty regular thing to get one or two people telling us how to change our conventions for the better, but when it comes to stepping up to do the work instead of just directing us from afar... well they fall rather short.
Re: Missing the point
Date: 2007-01-24 11:49 am (UTC)If by "talking points" you mean, facts that support my claims, then sure, I did. I proved Range Voting is a better voting method than IRV.
For example you used examples that are not anything like the elections we run. We don't get 40 candidates.
Most of our discussions of IRV, as well as our social utility simulations, deal with anywhere from 3 to 6 candidates. I was just making the point that, with more, IRV falls apart even worse.
You don't know anything about our group or how it works, you've just parachuted in without doing research about us and demand that we research your system.
I'm not debating about your group, I'm debating about IRV, something which I know apparently more than any of you about. Consider that a lot of you here didn't even know what the name of your voting method was. Consider that I wrote this page: http://RangeVoting.org/IRV.html Consider that I have conducted phone conversations with Australian minor parties to ask them about their experiences using IRV. Have any of you done any kind of actual research about IRV? I'm guessing not, or at least very little.
I'm not "demanding" you use Range Voting, I'm just pointing out the advantages of it, which for some reason has been met with irrational hostility by several.
Again, it's not my job to do your work for you. I'm telling you how you can do something that is better for YOU and helps YOU. If you choose not to do it, that's your loss. Why I'm even still here debating with you is anyone's guess. Basically because I just love a good debate. It's 3:30am and I have to get up at 6:30. I'm up arguing still because, hell, I just love to debate I guess. Why be so hostile to someone who is only trying to help you help yourself?