Of course we've thoroughly discussed one-person-one-vote here before. I used to abbreviate it 1p1v, but opov is easier, and so I'll call say "opov" for "one-person-one-vote".
Anyone can take the name of a pre-existing standard, and write a new meaning for it, and then use that new standard with an old name to judge methods by.
We all agree that opov means that all the voters have the same ways of voting available to them, and that, for any particular way of voting, their votes are counted in the same way.
Approval obviously meets that standard.
Some write a new definition of opov that says that everyone gets one vote only. That's a rules criterion, as oppposed to a results criterion.
It's well-agreed here that a rules criterion means nothing unless it can be justified in terms of a results criterion, one which can ultimatly be justified in terms of a fundamental standard, a standard whose importance is accepted without being justified in terms of anything else.
Last time this issue came up, I asked the opov advocates to justify opov in terms of a widely accepted results criterion or a fundamental standard.
If opov can't be justified in that way, then opov an only be justified as a fundamental standard--if you accept it as a fundamental standard.
A rule criterion as a fundamental standard is a rather ridiculous notion.
As I said, I asked to opov advocates to justify opov in terms of accepted results criteria, or a fundamental standard. They never did. So I posted the last posting in that discussion, entitled "1p1v abandoned?".
Since opov rightfully just means that every voter should have the same ways of voting available to hir, counted in the same way for a particular way of voting, Approval meets opov. Someone also pointed out that, in Approval, any voter has the power to cancel out the effect of any other voter.
It seems to me that Tom Ruen and Ruillon were opov advocates then. To them, then, I ask: You didn't answer my question then, about how you justify opov. Can you justify it now, or is it just that you wait for a while, and then start all over, repeating your refuted claims?
As someone ;pointed out this time (and last time too), Plurality doesn't meet the opov-ists' opov:
When you vote, what you're actually votiing is _differences_ in support. In Plurality the thing about your Plurality ballot that helps Kerry over Bush is the fact that you're voting Kerry over Bush. If you'd given a vote to both, that wouldn't help Kerry agains Bush. It's that you're giving a vote to Kerry and not to Bush. And that's still just as true when you're only allowed to give a vote to one candidate.
So, as was already pointed out, in Plurality you're effectively giving Kerry a positive vote, and everyone else a negative vote. There are two levels at which you can vote someone: Marked and unmarked. You're voting everyone but Kerry at the unmarked level. Plurailty fails the opovists' opov.
Or are the opovists saying that you should only be able to vote one candidate over others? Or that, at any point in the count, even if your "favor" can transfer around, you must never have more than one candidate in your shifting favored set? A silly, unjustifiable limitation of voting freedom.
If voting ;power is defined so that it can vary among voters, Plurality has more variation in voting power than Approval does.
On the occasions when we discussed this before, we, for the purposes of discussion, defined voting power as amount by which the voter can improve hir expectation by hir ballot, or the best expectation that s/he can get for the benefit brought by hir ballot. I'll call that "ballot expectation".
We discussed that at great length, deriving a formula for ballot expectation with some different rating configurations that a voter could have. If I could just summarize it here, we agreed that voters with different rating configurations could have different voting power in Approval and also in Plurality. We also agreed that that voting power varies much more between voters in Plurality than in Approval.
Voting power is more equal in Approval than in Plurality. So voting power equalization doesn't justify the opovists' opov. When I say opov, I'm talking about the opov promoted by those who say that each person should have one vote, rather than merely the same ways of voting, counted in the same way.
I posted to the Approval mailing list a demonstration of the factor by which Plurality can make the voters' voting power vary more than Approval can. That posting would be in the first few weeks of the Approval mailing list's archives.
Mike Ossipoff
_________________________________________________________________
Get fast, reliable Internet access with MSN 9 Dial-up � now 3 months FREE! http://join.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200361ave/direct/01/
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
