Responding because you wrote, but with no authority.
On May 12, 2012, at 9:04 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
Condorcetists:
You want to quibble forever about which rank-count is the best.
No - we want to move past that.
You object that Approval doesn't let you help your 1st and 2nd
choices against your last choice, while still helping your
1st choice against your 2nd choice.
True that while Approval is much better than Plurality, it keeps this
weakness.
But the _big_ benefit starts when everyone can support their 1st and
2nd choices at all.
We get back to wanting more when offered Approval's offering only best
and worst and we are looking at a candidate we cannot stand grouping
with best, yet desperately want to vote as being better than worst.
Plurality very effectively puts a gag on everyone who would like
something better than the corrupt sleazes
that your tv offers as "the two choices".
"We have to hold our nose and vote for the lesser-evil [Democrat],
so that we don't waste our vote."
Again, we do not want this lesser-evil to be seen in the counting as
desired equally with best, yet also see this lesser-evil as better
than those we classify as worst.
Do you have any idea how things would be if everyone could actually
support their favorites, and without
having to try to guess on which one the other similar voters would
be combining their support?
For all to support their favorites is our desire, hoping we do equal
seeing.
Do you understand the difference between "liked" and "unliked"? And
what would happen if everyone could support
whom and what they actually like best?
Do you have any idea how far-reaching the resulting changes would be?
No, I'm not saying that the resulting country and world would be
perfect in every way. I'm saying that it
would be what people actually want--something that they can support
without holding their nose. But don't
underestimate the magnitude of that change.
Though I consider Approval to be the best in some meaningful ways, I
also would like more--as you would.
But, as I said, most of the benefit comes from everyone being able
to support 1st choice and 2nd choice _at all_. Let's not
be greedy and dwaddle around forever about what else we could
ideally get.
Do you want improvement or not? Or would you rather debate forever?
Do want the improvement we see Condorcet offering, and see you seeming
to be promoting endless debate rather than working to move ahead.
With Condorcet:
. Those who still see Approval as good enough can vote it in
Condorcet by using a single rank for all liked candidates.
.. Those who want to indicate unequal liking simply use unequal
ranking.
.. The vote counters can see and respond to the unequal liking.
And, as for helping 1st choice over 2nd choice, while helping both
over last choice, free of strategy need:
You're in deinal about Gibbard-Satterthwaite.
You're in denial about Condorcet's blatant and full-magnitude co-
operation/defection problem.
The problem can be overstated. It requires willing plotters, whose
efforts can be too easily seen and responded to - especially in
significant elections such as for governor or senator.
And you're in denial about millions of voters' need to litterally
maximally help the Democrat beat the Republican.
With better voting methods the party balance can vary in response to
voter desires.
And that's not even counting the good chance of successful offensive
burial strategy when there are more than 3 candidates.
Mike Ossipoff
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
