On replying to objection on voting systems using verse

There have been some objection to the E Pluribus Hugo system that has been proposed for the nomination process of the Hugos. Brian Z (whom I alluded to in metafictional form previously) has made three points here:

1) Hugo nominations, unlike a FPTP election for a single office, involve a community of readers nominating up to five candidates each for five positions on a literary shortlist. That’s a horse of a different color. Calling EPH an electoral reform of the flawed FPTP system sounds good, but intentionally or not there is a sleight of hand and the eye is drawn away from how voting power is reduced and the signals sent to the community of voters are changed.

2) There is a real potential for an asterisk. Look at the precedent being set: Any Hugo administrator from any point in history would be able to post their historical data on github for EPH to be run with.

3) EPH normalizes slates by saying that if a group bloc-votes for a slate they obviously deserve to get some of their picks on the ballot, if two groups do it they should both get something on the ballot, etc. It flabbergasts me that any of you agree that.

My reply is a poem wot I rote. Aside from the typos, I’m quite pleased with it.

To a Brian Z I met Trolling on a Comment Thread

In verse, I must perforce
Attempt to answer true
The three points you raised to Oneiros
Before my face turns blue

Your voting power is not reduced, Nor in any form diminished
But rather the strength of it, Is increasingly embellished

For as each work you may have picked, Is lost to contingent cases
The power of your remaining picks, Is employed in stronger races

You see the strength of EPH, Is not within the weighting
Nor is it some odd artefact, Built to destroy the slating

As each time a choice of yours, Is by round eliminated
The weight of your remaining vote, Is increasingly inflated

So whereas in first-past-the-post, An unpopular choice is wasted
Your votes within the EPH, All contribute and are tasted

The potential for an asterisk, Is really not an issue
Assuming we has the ballots still, And are free from a snafu

The cases will be infrequent, In which a new fifth place instance
Would credibly be the winning work, Or would have run the distance

The slates do not become normalized, Nor does slating become accepted
By nominating with EPH,
Which has been carefully invested/With powers that do not tell
What combinations matter
But simply makes your preference work, And makes your vote grow fatter

This is not the case with first-past-the-post, That gives rewards a plenty
To the votes of a steadfast mob, With percentage of, say, twenty

In such a case this slating group, Will dominate quite completely
But joy or joys new EPH, Will limit them discretely

The point you see cannot be, To disenfranchise the nasties
Or treat them bad exclusively, Or call them names like ‘nahzees’

Every person’s vote must count, That must always be the rule
But the system must find a consensus choice, Or it will be played the fool

So must I now finish this, My clumsy versification
Haste you now to Making Light, For further elucidation

2 thoughts on “On replying to objection on voting systems using verse

Comments are closed.