On 26.5.2011, at 7.10, matt welland wrote: > On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 01:07 +0000, fsimm...@pcc.edu wrote: >> matt welland wrote ... >> >>> The only strategy in >>> approval is to hold your nose and check off the front runner you >>> despise because you don't want the other front runner you despise >>> more to win. >> >> The main problem is determining (through the disinformation noise) who the >> front runners really are. >> Suppose the zero-information front runners to be candidates A and B, but >> that the media created front >> runners are C and D. If everybody votes for one of these two falsely >> advertised front runners, then they >> become the front runners, but only through self fulfilling prophecy. >> >> When unbiased polls are not drowned out by the big money, this is no >> problem. But after the Citizens >> United decision, we have to assume that disinformation is the rule, not the >> exception. > > For me it seems we are so far from a point were discerning the front > runner is anything but blindingly obvious (at least in the US) that it > is a complete non-issue. Did any of the alternative candidates get into > the two digit range in 2008? The third party candidates are so > irrelevant that after a couple searches I still hadn't found a link that > mentioned the percentage results to put in this post. I would be > thrilled if when voting I even *considered* dropping my vote for the > lesser horror front runner in an approval vote.
Approval would be a perfect start for the US (assuming that you want to get rid of the two party dominance). It would work fine as long as the small parties/candidates remain small. When there are more than two potential winners, then Approval will face some strategy problems, and possibly also some of the discussed strategic poll related problems. When such problems materialize, then it would be time to change the system again. And at that point the probability of people wanting to return back to the old FPTP and two party domination would maybe be smaller. > > These concerns are like bikeshedding, we are arguing about the paint > color and we don't even have a roof, walls or foundation, hell, we don't > even agree on the plans. On this list there are many people with their own inventions and favourite methods, and people who love to study all the possibilities. They may be less all over the place if one makes the difference between theoretical studies and practical implementations. Also pointing out the target environment will reduce the number of possible choices. For example to me Approval is not an ideal theoretical general purpose single winner method, but if we discuss about possible next steps for some single winner elections in the US (where FPTP is used today), and we state getting rid of the two party dominance, then Approval is an excellent choice (maybe not to last forever, but a perfect tool for the current problem anyway). There may also be endless debates e.g. on the properties of the numerous Condorcet variants. Many people on this list agree that Condorcet methods are excellent general purpose single winner methods for competitive majority oriented elections. But if the need to rank (or rate) all major candidates is too much, then some simpler ballots should be used. And it is difficult to get an agreement on which one of the Condorcet methods is the ultimate best one, but that doesn't matter too much since all of them work quite well when compared to many of their competitors. > > That doesn't mean the debate on this list is not important, it is very > important, but I come full circle to my post from a while back. When the > knowledgeable experts can't put out a unified front there will be no > moving forward. I would have liked this list to find some general agreements on what methods should be generally recommended for practical use in different environments and traditions. That has not happened during the years. With clearly defined targets (e.g. a practical and politically acceptable solution for some particular election in the US within n years), maybe people on this list can at least point out the properties of various approaches. I don't expect consensus on one particular choice. I don't expect people to jointly sign any petition to support one chosen approach. Since the theoretical / scientific / web community is not organized, maybe support should be sought from some more traditional forms of political campaigning (lobbying, political activists, political movements, initiative with a support group). > > Sorry, it's hard to watch a country which had so much potential to make > the human condition better for people all around the world, turn a bit > uglier, meaner and, yup, more fascist every day. I suspect that the only > thing that can turn this around in a sustainable way is a change in the > voting system but without a crystal clear rallying cry from the experts > for *ONE* method that will never happen. > > Truth is that the goals of this list are at odds with my primary > interest. After reading any replies to this I'll sign off the list. I believe many individuals do support your goals, and in that sense maybe the "goals of this list" are in line with your goals. It is just hard to harness them and agree on a single solution to the problem. I wish you would stay and make this list one step better in responding also to questions related to practical needs and consensus on some chosen approach, marketing theme or generally accepted set of good quality solutions (for different needs). Juho > > Cheers and thanks to all for the great work done in furthering the art > and science of choosing our leaders! > > Matt > -=- >> ---- >> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info > > > ---- > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
