Demorep: Disapproval isn't enough

[Mike Ossipoff]

I don't oppose the use of disapproval, in any of the several forms
that Steve listed, for use with Condorcet's method. When I checked
it out, when it was 1st proposed here, it seemed to me that it
doesn't do any harm.

But it isn't enough, by itself. If you're using some count
method that isn't as good, and adding the disapproval vote,
and saying that anyone disapproved by a majority is disqualified,
then can you can't use it against Clinton & Dole both, and still
discriminate between them. If you don't use it against Clinton,
then you can't say that it's helping defeat Clinton if he has
a majority against him, if you, as a member of that majority
don't use it against him. If you do use it against him, 
then you're helping the Dole voters disqualify the candidate
who might be their greatest rival, and you're helping them
remove Clinton from competition, to perhaps enable Dole's
election. 

In other words, the old lesser-of-2-evils problem is still there.

Sure, use disapproval, but use it with a good count method for
the rankings: Condorcet's method.


Mike

p.s. You mention "Condorcet tie-breakers". I don't know what
you mean by that. Presumably you mean circular tie breakers.
You have a tendency to use "Condorcet" for things other
than Condorcet's method. Even if there's precedent in
calling a circular tie a "Condorcet tie", it's misleading,
since there's a method called Condorcet's method, and that
isn't what you're referring to.

Also, you mention Condorcet tie-breakers for multi-winner
elections. What? Except in your letters, I've never heard
of circular tie-breakers in connection with PR, or other
multi-winner elections. Maybe you're referring to the repeated
use of a single-winner method to choose several winners by
first finding a 1st winner, and then, among the remaining alternatives,
a 2nd winner, etc. That, of course isn't PR, and most electoraal
reformers prefer PR for multi-winner elections. If you're going
to talk about single-winner methods for multi-winner elections,
you must clarify what you mean, and justify the general practice
that you're suggesting.



--