tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7696446405100112491.post4650404102520213407..comments2023-10-31T06:45:58.112-08:00Comments on The Least of All Evils: Get This Party Started: Future HistoryDale Sheldon-Hesshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07974707193305445403noreply@blogger.comBlogger27125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7696446405100112491.post-20059043737219519812011-09-01T06:49:37.351-08:002011-09-01T06:49:37.351-08:00@Dale I was not asking about the rankings, but rat...@Dale I was not asking about the rankings, but rather the relative "score values" when preferences are unimodal. As I understand it, it does nullify the threat of non-monotonicity.<br /><br />I haven't read the paper myself. I wanted your feedback first.<br />dlwDLWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17709279441985086959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7696446405100112491.post-89434216611108228892011-08-30T16:17:22.968-08:002011-08-30T16:17:22.968-08:00Also: Yes, uni-modal distributions have been tried...Also: Yes, uni-modal distributions have been tried. The results are consistent with other BR voting-utility distributions. (I think it was a uni-modal example, actually, that had honest-IRV still coming in behind tactical-Approval.)Dale Sheldon-Hesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07974707193305445403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7696446405100112491.post-55951136519370320842011-08-30T16:14:02.478-08:002011-08-30T16:14:02.478-08:00DLW, thank you for pointing out that paper. I thin...DLW, thank you for pointing out that paper. I think it's quite a vindication of some of my arguments!<br /><br />For one, they point out that under approval, more candidates can run without spoiling the election. Sounds good!<br /><br />Two, they conclude that under approval, the winning position will be more moderate. Sounds good!<br /><br />And third, they point out that 3 candidate elections actually work under approval, although 4 candidate elections may exhibit problems. (Remember though that 3 is more than 2, even if 3 is less than infinity!)<br /><br />I think you're conflating the "only two possible winning positions" with "two party domination", because as more-centrist 3rd party citizen/candidates enter the race, the SUPPLANT one of the existing two parties. In other words, 3rd parties WORK when the existing parties drift away from the consensus. And that's great!<br /><br />I'll want to double check my math, but I think they made an error in their "approval fails Condorcet" example; I don't see why the type-1 voters would continue to approve the type-2 candidate in equilibrium for the faction sizes they describe. If they don't do that, they each gain 4 points of utility, and the Condorcet winner is elected; problem solved!<br /><br />Check me on this: if the factions sizes are 3, 1, 5, 4, that satisfies their inequalities, and if type-1 votes only for the type-1 candidates, position "small" (the CW) wins.Dale Sheldon-Hesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07974707193305445403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7696446405100112491.post-83855209803104240922011-08-05T03:56:41.303-08:002011-08-05T03:56:41.303-08:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Domain registrationhttp://www.register-web-domain.innoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7696446405100112491.post-86256296908250338012011-07-26T11:20:56.361-08:002011-07-26T11:20:56.361-08:00Hi Dale,
I was reading "Majority Judgment&quo...Hi Dale,<br />I was reading "Majority Judgment" at the suggestion of Stephen Brams and I gleaned from it that when preferences are uni-modal that ranked-base election rules work more comparably with non-ranked-based election rules.<br /><br />Has it been tested out how the BRs for election rules change when preferences over the candidates are constrained to be unimodal? <br /><br />Also, what do you think of taking the median of a score-vote, as opposed to the use of Approval Voting or Score voting?<br /><br />dlwDLWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17709279441985086959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7696446405100112491.post-57564965341128880902011-06-24T11:53:02.094-08:002011-06-24T11:53:02.094-08:00@Opinionator
Fusion voting is a formalization of ...@Opinionator <br />Fusion voting is a formalization of strategic voting in some elections while contesting other elections that lets third parties display their relative strength.<br /><br />I like it. I think it's easier to get if there is already substantial third party support and what-not...<br /><br />@DHS I think that there are lots of 3-seated STV elections used in Ireland. This could provide raw data for testing the impact of 3-seated STV Hare, even though it's arguable that voting strategies could shift with the change in election rules. But it'd likely be more convincing relative to simulated data. We could even limit the number of candidates per party by getting rid of their least popular third or second candidate.<br /><br />Now if I could only become a graduate student again with a focus one electoral reform...<br />dlwDLWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17709279441985086959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7696446405100112491.post-22733935596617005802011-06-24T10:39:45.790-08:002011-06-24T10:39:45.790-08:00Nobody seems to be aware that in New York State, t...Nobody seems to be aware that in New York State, third parties <b>do</b> succeed. Most of the time, they only join with the major ones, but they <b>can</b> elect people like James Buckley. The fusion systom is why it works there.Opinionatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13332824650892306265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7696446405100112491.post-27956476604257799902011-06-24T06:43:02.984-08:002011-06-24T06:43:02.984-08:00Dale, are you familiar with this paper?
It seems ...Dale, are you familiar with <a href="http://www.gtcenter.org/Archive/Conf04/Downloads/Conf/Oak.pdf" rel="nofollow">this paper</a>?<br /><br />It seems to suggest that Approval Voting won't end two party domination either and is still susceptible to the sorts of problems found in other election rules.<br /><br />dlwDLWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17709279441985086959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7696446405100112491.post-72063145091218489622011-06-24T06:32:46.703-08:002011-06-24T06:32:46.703-08:00@TF,
I agree.
dlw@TF,<br /><br />I agree.<br /><br />dlwDLWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17709279441985086959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7696446405100112491.post-81977872209753765032011-06-23T17:49:12.435-08:002011-06-23T17:49:12.435-08:00Also, I make a distinction between exclusive and &...Also, I make a distinction between exclusive and "dominated". UK and Canada are two party "dominated" states, largely a product of their plurality voting system, the US is a two party "exclusive" (with a few exceptions like Vermont) state, a result of more than just a plurality voting system, but an obvious source. Lots more dirty tricks and just plain ol' undemocratic tampering that results in an exclusive system rather than a dominated state.<br /><br />I'd like to see well organized third parties holistically challenge such rigging, I don't think it'd be hard to get people to angry at such things if they knew how rigged it was.TiradeFactionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06760660346802297769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7696446405100112491.post-31832265678897035542011-06-23T16:46:35.294-08:002011-06-23T16:46:35.294-08:00@DLW
"It's partially a matter of what...@DLW<br /><br />"It's partially a matter of what's causing what. When two parties dominate, they often get to set the rules to their mutual favor as well... "<br /><br />Well yeah, they set up the rules at the exclusion of everyone else. I think it's many more factors though than a singular source. <br /><br />I think one of the reasons many third parties aren't organized even despite the odds against them (with many more nations having them even when the game is stacked against them) is most Americans when despaired don't organize, they just drop out. If that attitude changed, we'd probably see some better organized third parties, and they'd probably change the discussion (even if just a bit) more into their favor.TiradeFactionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06760660346802297769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7696446405100112491.post-71302224069338935832011-06-23T16:41:41.951-08:002011-06-23T16:41:41.951-08:00@TF
It's partially a matter of what's caus...@TF<br />It's partially a matter of what's causing what. When two parties dominate, they often get to set the rules to their mutual favor as well... <br /><br />That's not necessarily true, but our third parties have been following too much the way of Ralph Nader to play the two major parties for seemingly modest but significant reforms that'll help move the center more in the long run.<br /><br />dlwDLWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17709279441985086959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7696446405100112491.post-47921809328949150282011-06-23T16:36:26.711-08:002011-06-23T16:36:26.711-08:00@DLW
"I think the strength of the US preside...@DLW<br /><br />"I think the strength of the US presidency and our regular nat'l presidential elections have secured two-party dominance in the US more so than Canada or the UK. "<br /><br />Yeah, there's some kernel of truth there, amongst other factors like debate restrictions, restrictive ballot access laws, etc. etc. <br /><br />@DHS<br /><br />Compromising on AV in some form or fashion might be worth considering, given FairVote's muscle and organization. It'd let us practice AV out in some fashion in a real political setting.TiradeFactionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06760660346802297769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7696446405100112491.post-76740915135690849042011-06-23T16:19:09.306-08:002011-06-23T16:19:09.306-08:00I didn't want to incite more acrimonious back ...I didn't want to incite more acrimonious back and forth. It seems to me like there's good reasons to favor IRV3/AV3 as a way to unite the two biggest bands of electoral reformers in the USA.<br /><br />If the goal is to secure a permanent majority then it makes sense that the stronger party would favor IRV if third party dissenters tend to be more likely to rank them higher than the other major party candidate.<br /><br />Here's a good question to ask though, "Who'd benefit [the most] from AV/STV?" and get them to support the advocacy, after all money makes the world go round...<br /><br />I agree wrt MLKjr. My point is that since the fund$/capacity for violence favor$ those in power, including their control of the MSM $pin of any such violence, protestors who want to move the center or make society deal with an issue need not to return violence with violence, which unfortunately means going against our deeply ingrained fight-or-flight impulse.<br /><br />dlwDLWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17709279441985086959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7696446405100112491.post-41847729448451590772011-06-23T12:10:36.398-08:002011-06-23T12:10:36.398-08:00@DLW
I don't want to get into the "acrim...@DLW<br /><br />I don't want to get into the "acrimonious back and forth" (you and I have done that already) but you said:<br /><br />"Improved single-seated rules (IRV, AV, SV or IRV3 with an AV3 first stage...) tend to be favored more so by those on the left and strongly opposed by those on the right."<br /><br />I have not found that to be the case. For instance, a few years ago IRV was proposed in Alaska; it was supported by Republicans and strongly opposed by Democrats. The real pattern seems to be that the *larger* of the two major parties supports IRV, and the *smaller* is against, whichever side of the partisan line they are.<br /><br />I also want to point out that MLK was shot and killed himself. Abjuring violent methods for yourself doesn't mean your opponents always will. Everyone has to believe that violence is not the answer; which means everyone has to believe that the political process is just.Dale Sheldon-Hesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07974707193305445403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7696446405100112491.post-61524660291801373592011-06-23T07:55:59.111-08:002011-06-23T07:55:59.111-08:00ps, I think that if we frame electoral reform as i...ps, I think that if we frame electoral reform as in the tradition of the civil rights movement that it is inevitable that there will be blood-shed.<br /><br />We need to make sure we follow MLKjr, not Malcom X or the Arab-springs in this regard...<br />dlwDLWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17709279441985086959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7696446405100112491.post-9119995349623757502011-06-23T07:54:01.836-08:002011-06-23T07:54:01.836-08:00@TF,
I think the strength of the US presidency and...@TF,<br />I think the strength of the US presidency and our regular nat'l presidential elections have secured two-party dominance in the US more so than Canada or the UK. <br /><br />@DHS<br />What if we made electoral reform the key issue? The problem then being getting folks to converge on electoral reform at least at the nat'l or local levels.<br /><br />Improved single-seated rules (IRV, AV, SV or IRV3 with an AV3 first stage...) tend to be favored more so by those on the left and strongly opposed by those on the right. And then you have the acrimonious back and forth between advocates for different electoral rules. FairVote has a marketing and first-mover advantage so why not get AV/SV advocates to switch to pushing FairVote to use IRV3 with an AV3 first stage? Then we could work together instead of against each other.<br /><br />Methinks though that 3-seated state representative elections that'd pretty much guarantee the election of a Republican and Democrat from each state-district and that'd make the 3rd seat competitive would have more potential for getting support across party lines. Especially, if it were explained well how it would subvert the cut-throat rivalry between the two major parties.<br /><br />As for which type of 3-seated election, we could use citizen councils at the state-level as were used in British Columbia to push for BC-STV. Except, they would decide which 3-seated election to push for in the state.<br /><br />dlwDLWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17709279441985086959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7696446405100112491.post-12546905366016961902011-06-22T13:53:22.764-08:002011-06-22T13:53:22.764-08:00@daniel noe:
Yup; that'd be one way to go abo...@daniel noe:<br /><br />Yup; that'd be one way to go about it.<br /><br />Unfortunately, at some point, that usually means people get shot.<br /><br />One of my big hopes for a better voting system, is that it would make these issue-related party changes not require physical violence.Dale Sheldon-Hesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07974707193305445403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7696446405100112491.post-53469756169656248842011-06-22T10:50:57.187-08:002011-06-22T10:50:57.187-08:00Speaking of Midwest, I guess we should bring up th...Speaking of Midwest, I guess we should bring up the Independent Party of Minnesota, which has done fairly well for a third party in the US. Perhaps there's still some latent expressed desire in the MidWest for "something else"?TiradeFactionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06760660346802297769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7696446405100112491.post-81599417511927739212011-06-22T08:54:39.382-08:002011-06-22T08:54:39.382-08:00Perhaps we need to push one of these issues up int...Perhaps we need to push one of these issues up into a major division.daniel noehttp://theunderstandingproject.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7696446405100112491.post-25356225021277798352011-06-21T15:41:55.774-08:002011-06-21T15:41:55.774-08:00What I particularly find interesting is how there ...What I particularly find interesting is how there aren't really any well organized third parties left in the United States (with some exceptions, like the VPP of Vermont and the MNIP of Minnesota). Even in authoritarian dictatorships there are (underground) well organized opposition parties. I'm not sure why, even with the odds beat against them, most of our third parties are pathetic in terms of organization.TiradeFactionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06760660346802297769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7696446405100112491.post-16389564957156194552011-06-21T15:17:09.801-08:002011-06-21T15:17:09.801-08:00No doubt, strong regional differences also create ...No doubt, strong regional differences also create a more viable parties in an otherwise duopoloistic setting. Britain in the second half of the 1800s was dominated by the Liberals and the Tories (Conservatives), yet a third party began to rise when they instituted secret ballots for Irish votes who in droves voted for Irish nationalists. The lack of such strong differences probably is another reason why we don't have any viable third parties outside Vermont (though I would think Hawaii would be an likely example for a regional based third party to rise)TiradeFactionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06760660346802297769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7696446405100112491.post-5974949989523490172011-06-21T14:42:15.080-08:002011-06-21T14:42:15.080-08:00India is an interesting example: they have a huge ...India is an interesting example: they have a huge number of successful 3rd parties. But they do it by having just two major *national* parties and zero to two *regional* parties in every state. India is very divided regionally (by language, culture, religion).<br /><br />There's also the issue of communication; as the ease of communicating across the continent improved, it became harder and harder for 3rd parties to succeed by the regional route.Dale Sheldon-Hesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07974707193305445403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7696446405100112491.post-75219500206235332052011-06-21T14:24:50.565-08:002011-06-21T14:24:50.565-08:00Yes, I knew both of those parties merged with thei...Yes, I knew both of those parties merged with their state Democratic affiliates, I just thought they were worth bringing up because they were successful to the point where the Democrats felt the need to co opt them, and my feeling they were short sighted in the long run. Interesting enough, the NPL populists eventually spread up to Saskatchewan and formed the CCF, which eventually became the NDP, which is now Canada's second largest party (whether that will last remains to be seen). <br /><br />I have a personal hypothesis (I have to do a lot more reading and research before I vet it out) that one of the reasons successful third party movements in the US never resulted in a change to the voting system is that a two party "system" can work when society is far more simpler than our own, in both technological complexity and electorate complexity (when only white males could vote for example). Typically a successful third party in the US would get their main focus adopted by one of the major parties and just disperse or merge then (NPL's famous achievement is the Bank of North Dakota), I feel they did this because they figured I suppose that the conditions for these events could simply naturally happen indefinitely when they need to happen in US politics. Again, somewhat short sighted...TiradeFactionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06760660346802297769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7696446405100112491.post-53203132869294311882011-06-21T14:07:14.392-08:002011-06-21T14:07:14.392-08:00Interesting how both of your examples of successfu...Interesting how both of your examples of successful third parties, are third parties that joined with a major party. The state Democratic party in ND *is* the Democratic-Nonpartisan League, and the state Democratic party in MN *is* the Democratic-Farmer-Labor party.<br /><br />(Which I think you know, I'm just pointing that out for anyone following along in the comments.)<br /><br />Their success was based initially on being a credible threat the major parties, by virtue of the issue they rallied around and its importance at the time. But their long-term success came by being re-captured by a major party.<br /><br />The whole NPL/FLP movement is interesting, because it picked up with the 3rd-4th transition and lasted all the way through to the 4th-5th transition; Teddy Roosevelt's failure with the Progressive party comes out of that period as well, and MN and the Dakotas are where he had some of his strongest support. So I think there really was a sustained and earnest desire for "something else" in that time and place. And while it had regional success, it had to, eventually, be co-opted by the Democratic party for any national impact. (Or, you could say, it eventually succeeded by pulling the Democratic party to its way of thinking.)<br /><br />Nothing is as cut-and-dry as I've made it out to be, but sacrifices must be made for the sake of succinctness; but the apparent long term (if regionally-restricted) three-party system in the American midwest is something worth examining in more detail.Dale Sheldon-Hesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07974707193305445403noreply@blogger.com