You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Sign in to report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to The Center for Election Science
I made some response, but if more Score advocates pile on, it might help get the attention of the one or two of the naïve. Of course, some will be thick-headed and will never be reached.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Sign in to report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to The Center for Election Science
As an aside, I hate that it's taken on this name "Ranked Choice Voting". That name could equally apply to Condorcet, Borda etc.
Toby Pereira
unread,
Jun 12, 2016, 6:42:57 AM6/12/16
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Sign in to report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to The Center for Election Science
I also don't like that "Proportional Approval Voting" is used as a name for a specific method. It's far too generic a description to be a name for a specific method.
Brian Olson
unread,
Jun 12, 2016, 7:49:51 AM6/12/16
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Sign in to report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to electio...@googlegroups.com
"Ranked Choice Voting" is indeed a BS attempt to steal the generic term, confuse the issue and make it seems as if there's only one form of it. There's a lot of intellectual dishonesty in IRV advocacy. (Mostly I blame fairvote)
I've taken to talking about "rankings or ratings ballots", specifically talking about the ballot 'front end', implying and often explicitly noting that there are multiple ways of handling the ballot-counting 'back end'.
--
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.
William Waugh
unread,
Jun 12, 2016, 2:05:15 PM6/12/16
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Sign in to report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to The Center for Election Science
Yes, I said something about that in the thread.
William Waugh
unread,
Jun 12, 2016, 2:05:54 PM6/12/16
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Sign in to report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to The Center for Election Science
Permission to quote you by name on this on Facebook?
William Waugh
unread,
Jun 12, 2016, 2:26:56 PM6/12/16
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Sign in to report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to The Center for Election Science
Here is some more detail about the thread I refer to.
The lead statement is by representatives of Jill Stein. It says:
The media is catching on that Ranked Choice Voting is a common-sense solution to our broken voting system.
Since the post by Stein or her representatives mentions "common-sense" as an adjective, I key on that in the response I wrote:
Common sense may be right 80% of the time. Voting math is, unfortunately, very counterintuitive. IRV does not solve the problems of choose-one Plurality. IRV proponents cannot prove that IRV accords the voters equal power over the electoral outcome regardless of how many candidates the voters support or oppose. Moreover, as shown under the heading "Shattered" in http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/ , IRV responds erratically to small movements in the center of public opinion. Score Voting solves all these problems and would establish representative democracy for single-winner elections. Multiwinner elections are harder to argue about, but I think a pretty good proposal for them would be proxy assignment.
Unquote me.
Another writer said "This country needs IRV. Instant runoff voting."
Stein staffers responded, "Ranked choice voting is the same as instant runoff voting, we just find people understand "ranked choice" more quickly because runoff elections are rare in the US. RCV is best for single-winner races, and we also need proportional representation for our legislatures."
I responded, "Jill Stein, there are ranking systems other than IRV.".
Now I see that Clay Shentrup has chimed in in that subthread. Thank you, Clay Shentrup. Here is a broad paste of what shows for Clay's contribution to that specific subthread; this paste might not include good copies of the links Clay cited.
Clay ShJill Stein No, there are a multitude of ranked voting methods, IRV being generally the worst of them. Condorcet and Borda are better. Simpler and better still are rated (not ranked) methods, i.e. Score Voting and Approval Voting. Please read "Gaming the Vote".