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: 2007-01-24 06:51 am (UTC)Unless you don't think that voter confidence in the system has any relevance, which is a patently absurd on its face.
Re: Supermajority vote?
Date: 2007-01-24 10:41 am (UTC)Unless you don't think that voter confidence in the system has any relevance, which is a patently absurd on its face.
Every time I fly, I feel a lack of confidence in the planes. Call it paranoia, because I know better, but I just feel scared someone will have done something wrong, and I'm going to die. Yet the planes still deliver me safely each time.
I could find an infinite number of examples like this, which completely disprove your assertion that confidence in the quality of something affects the quality of that thing.
Re: Supermajority vote?
Date: 2007-01-24 05:26 pm (UTC)You seem to be assuming a totally objective measurement of quality applicable to something that has a subjective element. What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter to me if your contrived "quality" system says something it utter perfection if my perceived quality of that thing is zero. It's like telling a kid to eat his vegetables because they are good for him. We know they're good for him. He may even agree that they are good for him. But he hates the taste, and therefore won't eat them, even though by "objective" standards, he should be doing so.
Re: Supermajority vote?
Date: 2007-02-10 10:50 pm (UTC)No, I'm saying that whether I'm terrified of dying in a plane crash does not affect the probability that I will.
You seem to be assuming a totally objective measurement of quality applicable to something that has a subjective element. What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter to me if your contrived "quality" system says something it utter perfection if my perceived quality of that thing is zero.
Social utility efficiency is about how good a voting method is at satisfying your subjective tastes. For instance, if that kid were at the school lunch room, and the teachers announced that they would list some options for the next day's lunch, and let the kids vote which one to have, that kid would want them to use Range Voting - not IRV or plurality. That would make him (and all the other students) more likely to be more satisfied with whatever lunch was chosen.
As another analogy, say I'm holding you captive in your home, and I have a 12-sided die and a 6-sided die (just imagine you're playing D&D). I tell you that in order to leave, you must pick one die, guess a number on it, and roll it - and if you guess the number correctly, you can go. Otherwise I hold you hostage another day, and we play again tomorrow.
Now, any idiot can tell you, you should pick the d6. Maybe when you leave, you'll go bowling, or maybe you'll go eat a steak at a nice restaurant, or maybe you'll go for a walk on the beach. Who am I to judge the value of what you do with your freedom? But no matter what you want to do, you'll be more likely to be more happy by picking the d6.
Range Voting is the d6 - IRV is the d12. Any questions?