Mike Ossipoff wrote (many things, including): >True, Approval doesn't let you vote all your preferences, but at least it >reliably counts all those that you vote. That can't be said for IRV.
What do we mean by "counts"? One meaning is used in arguments about why people should vote. "Your vote counts. If the election was otherwise tied, your vote could be the deciding vote." So, one meaning seems to be, there is a nonzero probability that the outcome of the election could be changed if you cast a vote. In fact, the probability that your vote will affect the outcome of an election is pretty small, except in very small elections. (Thus, I find it amusing that a substantial fraction of the population bothers to vote. On an individual basis, there are probably better ways for each person to spend his or her time than studying the candidates and voting. But for societies as a whole, there is benefit IF a representative sample of the population votes, and the voting method encourages voting behavior that leads to choosing candidates with good utility for the society.) Is Mike using the word "counts" in a fundamentally different way? Or is he just indicating that _given some poll results or other predictions of likely voting patterns_, in a typical election under a given election method, the chance that your ballot will affect the outcome of the election (in a way favorable to you - monotonicity!) is substantially better with Approval than with IRV? I'd like to see a mathematical definition of "counts" (as applied to elections), if it is different from what I have guessed, above. Cheers, - Jan ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info