4 ms·

> And you said "52.5% of people preferred Begich to Peltola" ignoring that 40 + 32 percent preferred other candidates over Begich. What this says is that if Beg

> And you said "52.5% of people preferred Begich to Peltola" ignoring that 40 + 32 percent preferred other candidates over Begich. What this says is that if Begich didn't run, more people would have picked Peltola oved Palin. You could just as easily say that if Palin hadn't run, more people would have picked Begich over Peltola (the 52.5% I mentioned). This is just tautological based on the IRV method. My claim is that if you reason from first principles, the IRV method produces results that are suboptimal. Begich beats both Peltola and Palin in head to head elections. It seems to me that if a candidate beats every other candidate in a head to head election, that candidate should probably be the one selected. If they aren't selected, that is a failure of the tabulation algorithm you're using. IRV is just one possible tabulation algorithm. My argument is that there are better tabulation algorithms. If you disagree that a candidate who beats every other candidate in a head to head election should win, that's the core of our disagreement, and I'd be interested to know what you think this criteria is not a good one.

Bilal_io 4y ago
How can we say "if Palin hadn't run" when Republicans preferred her over Begich? Why didn't they pick him over the other two if he's the favorite? Begich only got more second choice votes because after picking your first, it comes down to "the least evil", on one hand some people preferred Palin because they'd hate Peltola to win, and on the other hand people picked Peltola because they'd hate for Palin to win. If there were Republican primaries, Palin would have won over Begich, because in that instance you cannot count the votes that went second after Peltola as they're like Democrats. And then in a general election, we'd have the same scenario play as it did with RCV.
- gamegoblin 4y ago
  I completely agree with you that the result under the traditional primary system and FPTP election would have been the same. Palin would have won the primary, and then lost the general. The ultimate question is which candidate is socially optimal. Don't think about specific methods like FPTP, RCV, etc. Just think about specific heuristics. If you somehow had an algorithm for summing up societal satisfaction, which candidate would maximize it? Given that 52.5% of people prefer Begich over Peltola, do you agree that more Alaskans would be satisfied if Begich was the winner (again, without thinking about the details of the algorithm that selected him)? Given the result, it is clear that Alaskans are more satisfied with Peltola than Palin, but it's also clear that Alaskans would be even more satisfied with Begich over Peltola. But due to the particular algorithm used, that better outcome was precluded. There are different tabulation algorithms that result in higher expected satisfaction.

Bilal_io 4y ago

How can we say "if Palin hadn't run" when Republicans preferred her over Begich? Why didn't they pick him over the other two if he's the favorite? Begich only got more second choice votes because after picking your first, it comes down to "the least evil", on one hand some people preferred Palin because they'd hate Peltola to win, and on the other hand people picked Peltola because they'd hate for Palin to win. If there were Republican primaries, Palin would have won over Begich, because in that instance you cannot count the votes that went second after Peltola as they're like Democrats. And then in a general election, we'd have the same scenario play as it did with RCV.

gamegoblin 4y ago
I completely agree with you that the result under the traditional primary system and FPTP election would have been the same. Palin would have won the primary, and then lost the general. The ultimate question is which candidate is socially optimal. Don't think about specific methods like FPTP, RCV, etc. Just think about specific heuristics. If you somehow had an algorithm for summing up societal satisfaction, which candidate would maximize it? Given that 52.5% of people prefer Begich over Peltola, do you agree that more Alaskans would be satisfied if Begich was the winner (again, without thinking about the details of the algorithm that selected him)? Given the result, it is clear that Alaskans are more satisfied with Peltola than Palin, but it's also clear that Alaskans would be even more satisfied with Begich over Peltola. But due to the particular algorithm used, that better outcome was precluded. There are different tabulation algorithms that result in higher expected satisfaction.