> >I'd like to attempt an informal poll. How many of you out there consider >DMC/RAV technically superior to Approval Voting, how many consider it >inferior, and how many consider it to be of roughly (or exactly) equal >value. If you care to explain, why do you think that? Let's leave >complexity and public acceptability aside for now.
I think that DMC/RAV is almost certainly superior. Why? Because it passes Pareto, majority, mutual majority, Condorcet loser, Condorcet, Smith (actually I believe that Smith compliance implies the rest of these preceding criteria), and allows voters to vote a full ranking. Approval does none of the above. Unlike DMC/RAV, approval passes consistency and participation, but I don't consider these criteria to be very important. I prefer AWP to DMC/RAV. AWP uses the same ballot. I like AWP because it tends to keep defeats that a lot of people feel strongly about, and in the event of a cycle, tends to drop the defeat(s) that the fewest people feel strongly about. I also claim that this makes AWP more strategically stable than DMC/RAV. However, I expect that any strategic problems in DMC/RAV are probably significantly worse in approval. Hence, I can't think of any compelling argument for approval over DMC/RAV, except for the simple ballot design and ease of understandability, which you did not want to weigh in on this thread. Sincerely, James > > ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info