At 10:53 PM 9/30/2005, Paul Kislanko wrote:
All of this notwithstanding, no one has ever explained to me how including an extraneous "+" is different from
my_preferred>all_others_could_live_with>>those I think would save me some problems by having a heart attack.
It's not different. Why would you think it is?
I repeat, if I can say A+=B> then you shold be able to infer that from that me saying A>B>>(all others).
Yes. My point exactly, this is A+PW as I defined it. Mr. Simmons has a different proposal.
I think it has been missed, A+ is a ranked ballot, but ranking is truncated to two expressed ranks, and the Favorite rank is not used to determine the winner, it is used for other [very important] purposes.
A+PW is probably the minimum Condorcet method. It has two expressed ranks. The winner is the Condorcet winner; Condorcet cycles are resolved, I'd suggest, by choosing the Approval winner from the cycle.
The "plus" added to a ranked ballot is unnecessary, but it could turn an approval ballot into a semi-ranked ballot. If that is desirable, just use a ranked ballot to begin with.
I'll repeat this: the main objection to Approval is the inability to simultaneously vote strategically (i.e., for the favorite among the front-runners) and preferentially (for one's favorite over the front-runners). Adding an extra slot to Approval allows this. If the extra slot is not used for determining the winner -- which would still suffer from the strategic problem -- then it still has other important purposes.
And if the extra slot is used in determining the winner, A+PW is a Condorcet method, the simplest of all possible Condorcet methods. (It has three ranks. Fewer than three ranks, you have Approval. Disallow overvoting, you have Plurality.)
The more I look at it -- I've been doing some doodling with election scenarios -- the more I've become convinced that A+PW is ideal for a public proposal at this time.
It adds very little to the ballot. Essentially, any voting system can handle and report votes on items with two options. Adding extra ranks complicates the ballot and complicates counting. We may argue that the benefit is worth the expense, but it is hard enough to get Approval implemented, even though probably 90% of the election reform goal is accomplished with Approval. What is the main obstacle to Approval? The inability to specify a favorite. A+ accomplishes that, while leaving counting *very* simple.
A+PW uses the same ballot as A+, but the rank information is actually used as part of the election method. I'd say that this would accomplish 98% of the reform goals. With more ranks, there is improvement, to be sure, but at a cost.
If A+ is implemented, it is easy to go to A+PW, and A+PW might be better from the start, if it is politically possible. If A+PW is implemented, and a need appears for more ranks, again, not at all difficult to add them.
What is crucial is that the Approval cutoff be visible. A+PW does this, by essentially dividing candidates into three categories: Favorite, Preferred, and [Not Preferred]. A simple ranked system does not do it. You can't tell from a fully-ranked ballot where the approval cutoff actually is. So if you want to use full ranking, if you've got the political capital to pay for the ballot complexity, then it would be highly recommended that Approval Cutoff be specified on the ballot. Otherwise the meaning of a ranking is not clear. Favorite is obvious from a ranked ballot. What is not obvious, unless a means is used to make it clear, is what candidates were Approved, that is, the voter is expressing an opinion that the outcome of the election is reasonably satisfactory if any one of the Approved candidates wins.
(I've seen one object to the use of Preferred. As I'm using it, Preferred means "Preferred over all unmarked candidates." It's accurate. But the naming is not the core of what I'm suggesting, and the common name in election-speak for Preferred is Approved. But I've seen much more cogent objections to Approved, on the basis that voting "Approved" may not accurately represent the opinion of the voter, who is merely indicating a preference, not actually approving the candidate, about whom the voter may feel that he has to wash after voting "Approved." I can say that I'd prefer Genghis Khan to Adolf Hitler (difficult choice), but I'd have real trouble if I had to mark "Approved" after the name.
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
