tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7696446405100112491.post670903128390393889..comments2023-10-31T06:45:58.112-08:00Comments on The Least of All Evils: October Op-Eds Weave RCV Spell over MinneapolisDale Sheldon-Hesshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07974707193305445403noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7696446405100112491.post-66572563255192525332013-12-01T12:34:19.880-09:002013-12-01T12:34:19.880-09:00I never said it was worse than plurality, but not ...I never said it was worse than plurality, but not going to apologize for saying that it's the worst thing other than plurality.Dalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12958348490440095409noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7696446405100112491.post-6904816445323836662013-11-25T17:24:29.178-09:002013-11-25T17:24:29.178-09:00So no mea culpa about IRV not being so bad???So no mea culpa about IRV not being so bad???DLWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17709279441985086959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7696446405100112491.post-73607393849953152922013-11-21T11:46:41.676-09:002013-11-21T11:46:41.676-09:00seems likely that GOP establishment might be pushi...seems likely that GOP establishment might be pushing top 2 primary as a way to subvert tea-party. Methinks, FairVote's top 4 primary, using irv for the 4 candidates leftover in the 2nd round, that actually acheives what the proponents of top 2 primary claim it acheives would be the path of least resistance rejoinder.<br /><br />dlwDLWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17709279441985086959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7696446405100112491.post-19323427714214174922013-11-12T12:41:07.410-09:002013-11-12T12:41:07.410-09:00IRV doesn't end the incentive for negative vot...IRV doesn't end the incentive for negative voting by the top candidate against their closest competitor, but it does mitigate it, more so when there's uncertainty as to who is the closest competitor. <br /><br />It's here to stay, maybe mutating some into the second round rule for a "top four primary" that replaces "top two primary" in CA/WA/LA, and you'd better get used to it...<br />dlwDLWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17709279441985086959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7696446405100112491.post-19309008494944948692013-11-10T11:53:02.668-09:002013-11-10T11:53:02.668-09:00Well, the non-machine-supported candidate got elec...Well, the non-machine-supported candidate got elected and the election brought a lot of attention to the acheivement gap for minorities in Mpls and folks are happy with it. They'd like the vote-counting done more quickly, but that cd easily be fixed by treating the up to 3 rankings as approval votes in a first round that determined 3 finalists. <br /><br />I think that a lot of the BR models that predict a major diff in BR-results depend heavily on the a priori odds of the candidates. It may be true that the average number of candidates is 7, but it isn't true that all 7 of those candidates have voter-utilities drawn from the same distribution. Typically, there's a mixed distribution with some candidates being "competitive" and others "non-competitive". <br /><br />IRV lets the number of "non-competitive" candidates proliferate without spoiling the competition between the "competitive" candidates. It's possible that there cd be a feedback from the election rule to the expected number of competitive candidates, but in important political campaigns economies of scale of running a widescale campaign mitigate any feedback. <br /><br />As such, my prediction is that IRV improves on FPP closely comparably with AV or a Condorcet-like method if the poisson process that determines the number of competitive candidates(-1) has a mean of 1.3 or so. (let's say the mean currently is .5) You'd need a feedback big enough to get to like 1.7 before other election rules wd start to significantly improve on IRV in terms of BR. And if you complicated the model y relaxing the assumption of cardinal utility then Approval (or score) Voting wdn't pull away from the pack.<br /><br />Hope you are well.<br /><br />I think it's possible that a GOP civil war cd get the GOP establishment to support the use of IRV(modified as I advocate) for congressional elections since it'd take away the out-sized influence of the tea-party on the GOP and help Dems and moderate GOPers elect more moderate GOPers so we'd never have to worry about a gov't shutdown or default like we had or almost had happening again. And that cd get the Dems in the market for American forms of PR, since the GOP wd likely keep control of the HOuse due to the undue concentration of Dem-leaning voters in urban areas.<br />dlwDLWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17709279441985086959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7696446405100112491.post-41313710266873865972013-10-28T15:11:24.350-08:002013-10-28T15:11:24.350-08:00Indeed. "Core support" is a cover for &q...Indeed. "Core support" is a cover for "refuse to compromise."Dalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12958348490440095409noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7696446405100112491.post-62771432181400974262013-10-28T14:38:54.885-08:002013-10-28T14:38:54.885-08:00I think that the Burlington debacle should forever...I think that the Burlington debacle should forever be held up as the example of what's wrong with IRV/RCV. As you pointed out in your link about the Burlington election, it exhibited favorite betrayal, center squeeze, non-monotonicity, and participation failure all in the same election!<br /><br />Much is made about the fact that RCV only elects those with "core" support, but nothing is said about whether or not those who place second in an RCV election are better off. Wright, the 2nd place finisher, was going to lose the election whether it was RCV, some Condorcet method or if he had faced off against Kiss or Montroll one-on-one. But it was only RCV that disallowed consideration of his voters' preferences, which were running 3-1 in favor of Montroll. This means that the candidate with the most "core" support was another ignored candidate along with Montroll. No consideration was to be given to their full ranking because the RCV process had to be honored, regardless of the wishes of Wright's voters.Logannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7696446405100112491.post-42272962437484407912013-10-22T17:15:13.865-08:002013-10-22T17:15:13.865-08:00BTW, I'm thinking something like: If neither o...BTW, I'm thinking something like: If neither of my predictions come true, I will donate to FairVote, if both of them come true, whoever is willing to take my bet will donate to the Center for Election Science. (And if one and not the other, it's a wash.) Amounts negotiable.Dalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12958348490440095409noreply@blogger.com