On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 7:01 AM, George Sanders <geovot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A general reply for Ben: > Ben, If 'strategic voters' devolve Score into Approval into Plurality, > that's their choice, but at least those who WANT greater choice can have it > in Score. AND, every young person already knows about 'Score > Voting'--because it's what we all use on the internet to rate our favorite > products and services...and to SELECT the best one for our specific use if > we want--SO WHY NOT USE THIS MAGNIFICENT TOOL IN SELECTING THE MOST > IMPORTANT PERSONS IN THE ENTIRE FREE WORLD?!!!!! > What people want isn't always what the need. I think I would support a system that produced better results in terms of other factors (such as less susceptible to strategic voting) than worry about someone wanting something if it seems not to be in their own best interests. For example, I wrote a role playing game (Dream Factory) that had a mechanic that player could use - 90% of the time it was not their best option, but occasionally it was. What I found was that players were using the option a lot more than they should, much more in situations where the mechanic harmed more than it helped. So in the 2nd edition, I removed that mechanic. I see no need to give people choices that they think will get them what they want, but actually won't. And make no mistake, I am not saying that people shouldn't be allowed to pursue their preferential outcome, I am saying that they shouldn't be given a system that results in them more often not getting the outcomes that they actually want. In other words, I don't care if they don't get the system they want, so long as the system they get is better at given them the *outcomes* they want, make sense? > And Ben, what voting method would you use in this scenario (I've posted > this before, but it deserves re-mentioning here): > > *Scenario*: > Three candidates: two polarizing demagogues and a well-liked moderate > centrist. The two polarizing demagogues garner all the [first-place] votes > (think something like Stalin vs. Hitler here) and one of them wins the > majority, while the 3rd candidate--who was thought of as *everyone’s > close 2nd choice* (think a John-Huntsman-type here)--got NO VOTES > (although he had 100% ‘approval’)!!!**** > > *Question for you to answer*: “ > Who amongst the three candidates do you think is the best choice for the > collective society, and what voting methods will select him? > Like I commented on similarly in another post, I think a compromise candidate that everyone (truly) supports "ought" to win over a candidate that 51% support strongly. (Although I am not sure that Huntsman is that candidate, but that's besides the point.) As to what voting system would select him, I made a very on point announcement earlier: when I point out the flaws of a system in these emails, even when I say I hate certain pieces of it, is no guarantee that I won't hate the aspects of other systems even more. In other words, Just because I see some warts on Score/Approval voting doesn't mean that I have ruled it out, as I find it quite plausible that each other system has some pretty horrible pieces too. Right now, my goal is not to choose a system, it's to make sure I understand the flaws in this one, Score/Approval Voting. :) -Benn
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info