Who are the Academics in Psephology?

The wikipedia page say "Degrees in psephology are not offered (instead, a psephologist might have a degree in political science and/or statistics). " which I know. The issue is that there does not really seem to be much of a world community for this stuff. It seems like a real subject of academic study but it is almost impossible to find an academic who studies this. There are a number of academics, like myself, who do it as a hobby. Is there no academic journal for the work? It seems reddit is where the action happens which is very weird.

Some of the lest informed academics who claim expertise are actually the political scientist who have to teach a few lectures on this and learn for that. In my experience they do not have the math background to really understand the topic but think they understand the whole topic. Is the lack of academic pushback the real reason that groups like FairVote manage to get away with what they do? In most scientific fields, the experts will put people in their place if they start spreading propaganda.

The Wikipedia article you linked to lists some prominent psephologists, although not in the branch you had in mind. It also says that voting theory is a different field.

I saw that but the “voting theory” link just redirects to “social choice theory”. Is social choice theory what we r doing here? I think “election science” might be broader.

In any case the question is the same. Who are the acedemics in social choice theory?

I don’t know who, but I believe they currently focus on ordinal utility, rather than cardinal utility, in voting methods. It makes for a much harder to understand set of concepts, since you can no longer separate the utility of the candidates from their rank in the voters’ preferences, and I’m guessing this plays a big role in helping anti-cardinal voting advocacy. They reject the concept of cardinal utility as being unknowable and manipulable and whatnot, which I think stems a lot from the fact that ordinalists tend to focus on whether strategy can change who wins, rather than on how much better or worse the winner is. Here’s a concept that could help with demonstrating to ordinal utility fans the quality of cardinal methods: look at how much cardinal utility honest voters have, and how much (if any) they lose under strategic voting.

Somewhat unrelatedly, I have another idea that might help bridge the gap between cardinal utility and ordinal utility: Score Voting but if the majority likes any candidates, a candidate disliked by the majority can’t win.

Some things to look into for social choice theory are to investigate how Approval Voting was in Greece, the Approval variant of RRV in Sweden, etc.

Who are the Ordinalists you speak of? It seems most of these people are lobbyists. They are pushing old and broken methods like MMP or STV.

The people making advances are not acedemics in this field. Its not just in the Cardinal methods where better ideas and been found. Dual member proportional and Local PR are both pretty good examples of new methods.

I think that “election science” is more than just voting methods – it also includes solutions to gerrymandering and possibly even election security.

100% agree. Also, effects of these things over time. Some systems will fall into ruts like polarization and partisanship in society.

There are still many university folks studying ranked methods and publishing papers. I can’t find a lot of the good stuff illustrating this (in the advanced pieces, they talk about geometry and such for evaluating different ranking protocols) but here is a basic one: http://procaccia.info/papers/distortion.cia06.pdf

Here is another on the strategic manipulability simulation of each voting method as mentioned above: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/32200/1/MPRA_paper_32200.pdf

1 Like