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

Re: I'm a geek

[filkerdave.livejournal.com]

Why do I need to show up in real life?

Because the WSFS rules are made at (surprise!) the WSFS meetings. By real people who show up and do the work.

I don't see why this is so difficult for you to understand.

But the argument from incredulity grows tiresome.

The argument of, "I can't be bothered to show up in person to try and convince the people who do," alas, does not grow tiresome. It's been that way for years.

Re: I'm a geek

[thebrokenladder.livejournal.com]

Because the WSFS rules are made at (surprise!) the WSFS meetings. By real people who show up and do the work.

I don't see why this is so difficult for you to understand.

I wish I had time to promote Range Voting, be a musician, and keep my full-time job, AND manage my relationship with my girlfriend. But clearly I can only have so many hobbies. The point I'm trying to make, as I keep explaining again and again, is that there's good reason for YOU to want to show up at those meetings and get this system, because YOU will be the one benefiting. WE would benefit a little, by having another organization we could point to and say, "Hey, these cool people who do the Hugo awards use Range Voting!" But YOU would be the ones benefiting a lot more.

The argument of, "I can't be bothered to show up in person to try and convince the people who do," alas, does not grow tiresome. It's been that way for years.

I can give you more than sufficient evidence of RV's benefits right here. Then YOU can show up and DEMAND Range Voting, because YOU will see better results with it. Do it out of pure selfishness. Do it for yourself.

Re: I'm a geek

[filkerdave.livejournal.com]

I don't see what's wrong with the current system. Sure, I don't always agree with the results, and I won't always agree with the results regardless of what voting system is used. Life's a bitch. (I mean, c'mon, Downbelow Station won a Hugo? Never got past page 50.)

I don't care about Range Voting and really, I can't be bothered to make your arguments for you, because I have my own life, and my own interests and they don't coincide with your Pure And Holy Vision Of How Things Ought To Be.

If you want to make it happen, show up and do the work. I'm not going to do it for you.

Re: I'm a geek

[thebrokenladder.livejournal.com]

You should want your election results to coincide with how YOU and the other voters think things ought to be. That's the point of an election. Range Voting will give you almost as big of an improvement over your current system, as your current system improves over drawing a name out of a hat. Think about how much more representative winners become by going from random selection to your current voting method. Now add another 80-90% of that increase. Do you really want randomness to play such a huge part in your elections?

Re: I'm a geek

[filkerdave.livejournal.com]

Your continued inability to comprehend what any of us are saying impresses me greatly. Let me see if I can make it clearer for you.



As an aside, what you think that I should want and what I think I should want are not necessarily intersecting sets. (For that matter, who on Earth are you to say what I "should" want?)

Re: I'm a geek

[thebrokenladder.livejournal.com]

Let me be more clear then. You DO want Range Voting, as it will be better at giving you what YOU want. I don't know how to make this any more clear.

If you don't want to get Range Voting, then clearly you don't care that much who wins, so you shouldn't even vote anyway. Or you should just vote by picking a candidate's name out of a hat. That's effectively what you are getting by using IRV instead of Range Voting - a huge amount of random deviation from ideal utility.

Re: I'm a geek

[filkerdave.livejournal.com]

No, I don't.

I don't give a rats ass for range voting, really. I make my Hugo choices. Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose. The underwhelming outcry against the winners from the people at the convention shows that A) the system is not, in the eyes of fandom, broken and B) generally produces results along the lines of what people want.

f you don't want to get Range Voting, then clearly you don't care that much who wins, so you shouldn't even vote anyway.

You know, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you might, just MIGHT, have some socially redeeming characteristics somewhere in your psyche.

You don't.

You have ceased to be entertainly or informing and have moved into the actively insulting. As such, you are not worth time, electrons or oxygen. Go thou and find a life somewhere. You sorely need one.

No go away or I shall taunt you a second time.

Re: I'm a geek

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

As we've been telling you, your argument boils down to "Do what I say because I'm so obviously right." You aren't the first person to claim this and I doubt you will be the last.

Re: I'm a geek

[thebrokenladder.livejournal.com]

More accurately my argument was, "Doing this would be of great benefit to you, and here's the overwhelming evidence."

I can't think of any reason you and others here would be so hostile about a great improvement. I feel like Darwin or Einstein, being told, "This evolution stuff is crap" or "This time dilation stuff is crap". Well, the evidence says otherwise. Do you want to be a creationist? Do you just enjoy having a bad election system? In that case I don't understand why you don't just pick the winner out of a hat.