[EM] Academic paradox of election methods.

[Richard Lung]

The academic paradox of election methods.

The widespread assertion that there is no such thing as right and wrong,
in election methods, is a paradox. If this statement were right, it
would contradict itself, and is therefore wrong. If this statement were
wrong, it would still contradict itself, and therefore be right: in
other words, it is right to say this assertion is wrong.

Over half a century of academic apology, for the world anarchy of
election methods, is a paradox.

This academic paradox complements the political paradox of electing an
election system by referendum.

Without knowing the right election method for electing an election,
there is no way of knowing how to elect it. If you do know, the election
of an election is superfluous. This supports HG Wells awareness that
voting method is not a matter of opinion but of demonstration.

A combination of the two paradoxes was previously stated as follows:

If there is no true election method, then no election method can truly
choose an election method.
If there is a true election method, then, the truth being one, there is
no choice of true election methods.

[Kristofer Munsterhjelm]

Post by Richard Lung
The academic paradox of election methods.
The widespread assertion that there is no such thing as right and wrong,
in election methods, is a paradox. If this statement were right, it
would contradict itself, and is therefore wrong. If this statement were
wrong, it would still contradict itself, and therefore be right: in
other words, it is right to say this assertion is wrong.
Over half a century of academic apology, for the world anarchy of
election methods, is a paradox.

Gibbard-Satterthwaite and Arrow say there's no such thing as a perfect
election method. It doesn't say that this implies that every method is
equally bad. All it means is that you have to decide what's important
and then choose the election method on that basis since you can't have
it all. Somewhat like politics in general, perhaps?

Post by Richard Lung
This academic paradox complements the political paradox of electing an
election system by referendum.
Without knowing the right election method for electing an election,
there is no way of knowing how to elect it. If you do know, the election
of an election is superfluous. This supports HG Wells awareness that
voting method is not a matter of opinion but of demonstration.

You could always do it by a combination of referendum and deliberation;
or in general, by a method that would be impractical to use on every
election (like repeated balloting).

One example of this would be BC's Citizens' Assembly for Electoral
Reform recommending STV as the new voting method; another would be New
Zealand's two stage referendum, where the first vote was about whether
the system should be changed, and the second was about what it should be
changed to.

It's also possible that (in the right circumstances), you could get a
convergence to better methods. E.g. suppose election method X was
replaced with method Y which, though somewhat better, is not ideal. Then
later, Y is replaced by Z which in turn improves on Y. However, I think
that's less likely since voting reform is such a tough thing to
accomplish even once.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

[Richard Lung]

"no...perfect election method" -- an empty statement. Science does not
claim perfection but seeks progress in knowledge.
Contra "you have to decide what's important,"    the  reference to  HG
Wells is, from  "The Elements of Reconstruction" 1916: Voting method is
not a matter of opinion but a matter of demonstration.

Richard Lung.

Post by Kristofer Munsterhjelm

Post by Richard Lung
The academic paradox of election methods.
The widespread assertion that there is no such thing as right and
wrong, in election methods, is a paradox. If this statement were
right, it would contradict itself, and is therefore wrong. If this
statement were wrong, it would still contradict itself, and therefore
be right: in other words, it is right to say this assertion is wrong.
Over half a century of academic apology, for the world anarchy of
election methods, is a paradox.

Gibbard-Satterthwaite and Arrow say there's no such thing as a perfect
election method. It doesn't say that this implies that every method is
equally bad. All it means is that you have to decide what's important
and then choose the election method on that basis since you can't have
it all. Somewhat like politics in general, perhaps?

Post by Richard Lung
This academic paradox complements the political paradox of electing
an election system by referendum.
Without knowing the right election method for electing an election,
there is no way of knowing how to elect it. If you do know, the
election of an election is superfluous. This supports HG Wells
awareness that voting method is not a matter of opinion but of
demonstration.

You could always do it by a combination of referendum and
deliberation; or in general, by a method that would be impractical to
use on every election (like repeated balloting).
One example of this would be BC's Citizens' Assembly for Electoral
Reform recommending STV as the new voting method; another would be New
Zealand's two stage referendum, where the first vote was about whether
the system should be changed, and the second was about what it should
be changed to.
It's also possible that (in the right circumstances), you could get a
convergence to better methods. E.g. suppose election method X was
replaced with method Y which, though somewhat better, is not ideal.
Then later, Y is replaced by Z which in turn improves on Y. However, I
think that's less likely since voting reform is such a tough thing to
accomplish even once.

--
Richard Lung.
http://www.voting.ukscientists.com
Democracy Science series 3 free e-books in pdf:
https://plus.google.com/106191200795605365085
E-books in epub format:
https://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/democracyscience

----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info