Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-05-18/Voting system

Where is the dispute?
There are two unrelated issues that are subject to an edit war right now.
 * 1) Should the column of the systems/criteria table which corresponds to the Lesser No Harm (LNH) criterion be colored, to indicate that satisfying LNH is a good thing, as the other columns are? Or should it be left white, if the LNH is considered to be a negative factor by some theorists?
 * 2) Should Bucklin voting be counted as passing the IIA and Clone independence criteria in the same table? There are 3 options: that it be counted as failing; that certain versions of Bucklin be counted as passing or arguably passing, and others be counted as failing; or that the article leave those two cells blank, for lack of reliable sources.


 * Note: question 1 is now resolved to my satisfaction and edit warring has ceased. Question 2, however, is definitely ongoing. Homunq (talk) 15:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Who is involved?
Just a list of the users involved. For example:


 * User:Homunq
 * User:MarkusSchulze

What is the dispute?
I'm sorry, I can't present this neutrally. From my perspective, I'm seeking consensus while Schulze is edit warring. There is some support for that perspective in the 3rd opinion which I've already sought on issue 1 above. I want him to stop, and participate in the discussion on the talk page. If he would just calm down, he is a very smart guy. You can see the dispute in the last two sections of the talk page; on Talk:Bucklin voting; on his talk page; and in my report on the edit warring notice page.

What would you like to change about this?
I'd accept any resolution in which Schulze participated in discussion. Sadly, at this point, I have a hard time imagining that happening unless it is impressed upon him that his current course of action is unsustainable.

How do you think we can help?
This needs to be more than just me against him. If a third person can come in and tell each of us what we're doing wrong, perhaps we would be more open to that than if we're just telling each other. I think this should be principally conducted on the relevant talk page; there's no sense spreading the debate out any further.

Note that if you feel I'm escalating this too quickly, you can just tell me. If you feel some other forum (I've already tried 3rd opinion, but maybe RFC or Wikiquette??) would be better than informal mediation, then I'm open to hearing that, too.

Mediator notes
Withdrawn per requestor per below. --Wgfinley (talk) 22:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I see "Homunq" has taken his dispute with Markus to a higher level. I posted this at at Voting System talk page and so will post it here as well: "Homunq: I know you hang out in the Internet with people who think FairVote is some evil, manipulative force and that only FairVote might suggest that later-no-harm is a concern, but once you get out more in the real world of working for reform on the ground, all the lovely mathematical theory about finding the compromise candidate, etc, melts away. Imagine approval voting in the Hawaii congressional race right now, for example, with two Democrats who don't like each other splitting the vote, and likely to help elect a Republican who only can earn a plurality. With IRV, it's simple for Democratic voters - you rank your favorite first and probably hold your nose and rank the other Democrat second. With approval, however, backers of those Democrats would be torn -- do I vote for both Democrats, potentially causing the defeat of my favorite choice, or do I bullet vote for just my favorite and in turn risk electing my greater evil, the Republican? You also would see lots of insider whisper campaigns among proponents of one candidate or anotehr to say "don't tell anyone, but yes, just bullet vote for our candidate". This kind of stuff would play out all the time with systems that violate later-no-harm (especially in such a direct way as approval --less so with Condorcet systems, which have their own political baggage of potentially allowing a no-name candidate to defeat better-known rivals simply by being so wishy-washy/unknown that no one ranks that candidate last).
 * Okay, that's just introductory verbiage, but perhaps worth considering as you critique FairVote for its advocacy of the one single winner (in a single election) system that avoids the later-no-harm problem. Turning to the Smallwood case, I think you're wrong,and citing the Landskroener/Solgard article (which is linked from the later-no-harm Wikipedia article, so not too hard to find -- see http://www2.mnbar.org/benchandbar/2002/oct02/voting.htm) addressing Smallwood would be appropriate grounding for suggesting later-no-harm is legitimate. I assume there's some also theoretical writing that addresses it too, but if there isn't, it to me just shows the real limits of such theoretical writing-- great on the math board, lousy in real political life where the science of human psychology matters too.
 * Here's a direct quote from the Smallwood opinion, as cited in the Landskroeer article: "The preferential system [Bucklin voting] directly diminishes the right of an elector to give an effective vote for the candidate of his choice. If he votes for him once, his power to help him is exhausted. If he votes for other candidates he may harm his choice, but cannot help him." Pretty clear to me, and explains in a nutshell why so many voters didn't rank anyone second in Bucklin elections where I've seen results.
 * I know this is a bit testy and you're following proper procedure, but it can be exasperating to argue with people (not you, but others you know well) who are so certain they are right, but NEVER seem to engage with the real reform work of trying to convince policymakers of the value of reform, and instead just plunge into reform opportunities at the last moment to oppose IRV. Certainly if you and others did so, you would realize that later-no-harm is a substantive criterion. RRichie (talk) 11:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, RRichie. I may disagree with you in many ways, and you're certainly right that I "hang out with ... on the internet" people who casually use your name as shorthand for all kinds of bad things, but I'm still very glad to see that you don't lump me in with them. Certainly, your quote from the Smallwood case is pertinent, and I see no need for mediation with you - I'm sure we can come to a consensus, because you're talking. Really what's annoyed me about MarkusSchulze is that, rather than talking to me, he seems to have decided to treat me as an annoyance to be squelched. Anything more related to the issue should go on the talk page there, where I'll go now. Homunq (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The 3RR report was just closed by protecting the page. This is a deeply unsatisfying result to me. I am trying to follow the rules, trying to avoid edit warring, and it gets treated as if it were a symmetrical situation. I'm not going to whine about WP:WRONGVERSION, but I feel that protection is to the detriment of the page. And the whole reason I reported the 3RR violation, as well as bringing the dispute here, is that I feel that, unless somebody besides me tells him to stop, MarkusSchulze will continue to WP:OWN the page. I don't want him blocked, but I do want him warned that such behavior, if continued, could get him blocked. Homunq (talk) 22:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The edit war has resumed on Bucklin voting. Apparently, User:MarkusSchulze's appetite for edit warring continues unabated. Twice in 20 minutes, he restored a disputed section with the unmodified edit comment "removed original research" (emphasis mine). We need some kind of mediation; the article protection was no solution at all. Homunq (talk) 23:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Homunq, it is well known that Bucklin voting violates independence of irrelevant alternatives. See: Arrow's impossibility theorem. Please stop vandalising. Markus Schulze 23:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The above comment was posted simultaneous with the last edit in a 3RR violation. Two of the four edits restored unreferenced material with the comment "removing original research"; the other two removed fact tags with the comment "Dear Homunq, your claim, that it is unknown whether Bucklin voting satisfies independence of irrelevant alternatives, is ridiculous. See: Arrow's impossibility theorem.". These comments completely misrepresented the underlying edits, in which he continues to push his own original research, implicitly on the meaning of the term "Bucklin voting", and explicitly on the resultant properties of the system. Since these were his last edits, so far he continues to show no recognition of the inappropriateness of his actions. I believe that part of his problem is his lack of respect for me, personally; and this troubling lack of respect is fast becoming mutual, a situation which sharpens the need for the presence of third parties if consensus is to be obtained. Thus, I repeat my request for mediation. Specifically, I believe that if mediation helps establish clear norms for behaviour, then consensus should be easy to obtain. Homunq (talk) 14:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawn
While I am still frustrated by Schulze's lack of engagement on the talk pages, he seems to have backed off his aggressive revert posture, allowing us to find a consensus on the content. There is no mediation needed at the moment. Homunq (talk) 16:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)