IRV Group

[Clay Shentrup]

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/ranked-choice-voting

Interesting how many members it has and how constructive the dialog is.

[NoIRV]

On Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 2:30:01 PM UTC-4, Clay Shentrup wrote:
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/ranked-choice-voting
>
>
>
> Interesting how many members it has and how constructive the dialog is.

I have mixed feelings about this.

On the one hand, they do not seem to talk about different options like we do (vanilla Score, Approval, STAR, etc), instead being only devoted to IRV and STV. On the other hand, they seem to be organizing strategies to put their (bad) ideas into action.

Joining the group and then writing posts saying "Top 5 Reasons why IRV is bad and STAR is good -- with Actual Proof!" will just get the ones who do it kicked out and make the IRV propagandists more set in their ways. Subtle intrusions may last a little longer, but the IRV propagandists will still probably realize what is going on. So maybe we just need to let them be and create our own videos and write letters to state legislators and state Democratic parties and state Republican parties.

[NoIRV]

I just realized that most of the "benefits" of IRV, like more civil campaigns, may be placebo effects just like how homeopathy can "cure" some things because people believe it will work. I wonder if the real reason why IRV appears to "work" in the "soft" ways (non-quantifiable) is because the people are exposed to something new that could work, and would thus show the exact same behaviors under STAR or Score, which work better in the "hard" (quantifiable) metrics.

Maybe you have all been here a thousand times, but I wanted to (re)throw the idea out there.

[Felix Sargent]

Moderation is everything.

Felix Sargent

---

From: electio...@googlegroups.com <electio...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Clay Shentrup <cshe...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 2:30:01 PM
To: The Center for Election Science
Subject: [CES #18053] IRV Group

 

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/ranked-choice-voting

Interesting how many members it has and how constructive the dialog is.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Center for Election Science" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to electionscien...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Steve Cobb]

You can tell by the name that the group is for pro-IRV activists--why would you want to join it? The point is that the group is an example for other activists (presumably some people here). Don't be a vandal, do something constructive.

[Ciaran Dougherty]

While the Placebo improvements are still improvements... I worry about them long term.  Just as Duverger's Law, and the responses to it didn't (all) appear overnight, I suspect that the "soft" benefits of IRV will disappear over time, as the players learn the new rules (and implications thereof) of the game, as they have in Australia.

Indeed, I wonder how much of the "Civil Campaigns" is Placebo, and how much of it is "Default Behavior."   It seems to me that the electorate's antipathy towards negative campaigning makes it so that candidates prefer to not use such tactics, only to have that preference overwhelmed by desire to win.  This seems to be supported by the trend towards positive campaigning until one side or another breaks the truce.  If so, then any change that might make such tactics unnecessary would allow candidates/campaigns to revert to their preferred behavior...

...until they realize that under IRV, it still is all about the "Lesser of Two Evils" in practice, which would present them with the same "Zero Sum" scenario that pushed them towards negative campaigning in the first place.

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 2:38 PM, NoIRV <xyzxyz...@gmail.com> wrote:

I just realized that most of the "benefits" of IRV, like more civil campaigns, may be placebo effects just like how homeopathy can "cure" some things because people believe it will work. I wonder if the real reason why IRV appears to "work" in the "soft" ways (non-quantifiable) is because the people are exposed to something new that could work, and would thus show the exact same behaviors under STAR or Score, which work better in the "hard" (quantifiable) metrics.

Maybe you have all been here a thousand times, but I wanted to (re)throw the idea out there.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Center for Election Science" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to electionscience+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.