This part is a bit confusing, because what use would the asymmetry be if it didn't change the result?

The estimated total utility, given a voter's perspective, would change because of the change in the weights. The asymmetry would mean people would disagree on which situation maximizes utility.

Do keep in mind, this is assuming a lot of things we don't have. People don't understand cardinal systems, don't always think long term, don't always have resources to act long term, etc.

All true, but my point is that the other typical anti-utilitarian arguments being made against cardinal systems don't hold up. Criticizing the extent of these premises would constitute a legitimate argument instead, and I'm hoping to encourage that discussion. This "we can't compare utilities, my 3 doesn't mean the same as your 3" and so on are not really a concern at all.

But notice that some of these very same premises are also being used elsewhere in this discussion, such as the notion that strategic behavior will dominate because those voters will see the system as exploitable.

I'd question whether any significant portion of the population (other than the current political establishment) might get hurt by this, because in the short term that's a drag on ability to convince them.

Absolutely. And that's an important discussion we've had before. But nobody really goes that far, as we're stuck on silly arguments. These are the important questions, which are more about culture, psychology and sociology than social choice or politics.

The problem I have with a lot of the theory here is that the theory itself doesn't account for our realities.

In particular, Omohundro's results do apply to our reality and we see ordinal cycles being exploited.

Do we really attempt to squeeze the sponge of utilitarianism through the pipe of public understanding and cooperation?

I don't have all the answers and I don't have to. I want to bring the discussion to this topic, because you are absolutely correct in that it is the real concern and the biggest roadblock.

But unless we consider the cardinal framework as a real alternative first, we'll not get the discussion at that level. However, people still think scoring is "epistemologically impure" or whatever, and so we get those silly tired old arguments like in the OP.

People aren't perfectly informed, and thus, not perfectly rational about which system to switch to.

People are not even rational. Assuming rational agents is an unrealistic premise, and so all these conclusions should be considered a model. This also means these claims that people will game the system immediately and forever are not accurate, because it assumes that short-term strategical rational behavior.

IRV profits off of that, and as long as we need page long rebuttals, such as what you fire off regularly, to win the argument, we'll never get anywhere. We'd be academics throwing books at a fire to make it go away. This, fundamentally, is why Asset looks so good to me.

We're attempting to deconstruct and replace a flawed political culture. It's impossible to do it with a soundbite sentence. But I am a very verbose person because I try to cover all the considerations beforehand to avoid super deep threads.

This, fundamentally, is why Asset looks so good to me.

And yes, you are right that asset is arguably the simplest system that sidetracks all that crap.

I still think that asset is more appropriate as a proposal for countries with two-round runoffs, as the exact same "delegated political support" already happens, but only symbolically. Having the votes actually transfer and change outcomes would be a tremendously positive change with a stupidly simple alteration of the rules.