Russ said:
I can understand how someone could come up with this "one man, one vote" objection as a first reaction, but if such a person cannot be persuaded of the folly of this objection, that person is obviously not too bright. I don't think we should gear our public proposals to that level of stupidity.
I reply:
The 1-person-1-vote objection to Approval, fallacious though it is, is very often heard. You suggest that proposals shouldn't be designed for people who can't be persuaded of the folly of that objection. But persuading everyone of the folly of that objection first requires reaching everyone, and having everyone hold still for, listen to, the answer. That can't be counted on even under the best conditions, but is especially unhopeful when the opponents have much more money with which to reach people.
Therefore, though the 1-person-1-vote objection to Approval is easily answered, in a number of different ways, it's still better to propose something that isn't vulnerable to a widely-felt objection like that in the first place.
Russ continued:
The objection I've heard from several IRV promoters regarding Approval is actually a legitimate one. They don't like the fact that it forces the voter to rank all of his approved candidates equally. I don't like that aspect of it either.
I reply:
Stop the presses. Contact the journals. It's been discovered that Approval forces us to rank our approved candidates equally, and that it would be better to be allowed expression of all of our preferences.
Actually those things have been well-known, widely-known, and widely-discussed for quite some time.
For instance, I've often said that one reason why I prefer Condorcet wv to Approval is because I like the luxury of being able to vote all preferences.
Russ continued:
Yes, I know all about convergence to the CW under ideal assumptions, but we live in the real world where those assumptions aren't valid
I reply:
The demonstrations of Approval's convergence to the CW assumed that the candidates were the same as in the previous election. No one has said that that assumtion is "valid" in the sense of being reliably true.
But if the candidates are different, the best assumption, if we don't have reliable predictive information, would be that there are candidates similar to the previous ones. Especially if there are many candidates.
Though the demonstrations assume, for simplicity, that the candidates are the same, in practice all that's needed is for there to be similar candidates, and for the electorate to be the same.
What can we say about the electorate, if we know how the electorate voted 2 or 4 years ago? What's the best assumption, the best guess? It's that the electorate is like it was before. There might be "dispersion" about that "central tendency", but it's still the best assumption.
To insist that that that assumption be "valid", in the sense of always being entirely correct, is to show a profound misunderstanding of Approval strategy. Approval strategy doesn't use reliably valid predictive assumptions. Approval strategy uses best guesses.
The assumption that the electorate is like it was before is the reasonable presumtion, when reliable predictive information isn't available.
Russ
-- and may not even be a good approximation.
I reply:
Actually, as one would expect, experience shows that it is a good approximation. The proportions of people with the various beliefs and preferences doesn't change radically from one election to the next.
Russ continued:
when intelligent voters realize that they might as well just vote "bang-bang" (min or max), they will decry the unnecessary complexity of general CR.
I reply:
Good. Then they'll switch to Approval, which I prefer to the other CR versions.
Russ continued:
But the most important reason I think CR is an unwise public proposal is that it just doesn't "feel" right to me. Try to imagine going into a voting booth and having to rate each candidate on a numerical scale. It just won't happen.
I reply:
Ok, did you hear that everyone? We shoud go by what "feels" right to Russ, and by Russ's imagination, and disregard what is actually said by the people who would need to be convinced in order to enact voting system reform.
Mike Ossipoff
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
