[EM] What would Tom impose, and how?
tomruen at itascacg.com
Mon Apr 2 20:19:37 PDT 2001
I'm sorry, but when I'm advocating change, I'm imposing my views on others.
I don't feel I have the right to demand two full votes for two candidates in
a competitive elections if others complain that they only get one vote
because they only have one favorite.
Approval gives people 10 votes among 10 candidates, but denies people the
right to put more than one vote per candidate. If approval were truly a
single election, voters ought to be able to put all 10 votes anywhere, like
If approval is considered 10 independent elections, then it is fair in that
context. If we are measuring which parties deserve public funding, or
inclusion into public debates, approval is a wonderful method because there
can be many winners and the government can always allocate more money to
more parties. I can see if the results are not competitive, then the method
of voting need not be competitive. However elections are competitive since
not all can win.
Approval is a rating system. Plurality, generalized, is a cumulative system
(fixed votes). Like Don said, if you want to support 2 candidates, give
them both half of your voting power. This is what happens in cumulative vote
Unranked IRV is a cumulative system, just like plurality. Unranked
split-votes plus runoff is a true extension of our current system of
plurality plus runoff. I see Unranked IRV as the simplest practical reform
because it conforms to the existing standards and it handles the most common
problems of our current elections.
I CAN defend Unranked IRV on the grounds that as a voter, I ought to have a
right to split by support among two candidates. This is a very practical
choice in Instant runoffs. I am not taking more than anyone else, just
changing how I wish to use my vote. Demanding this right is imposing on the
vote counters perhaps, but not other voters.
Approval can't be defended in the same way because it gives new power to
some, but not others.
I like this philosophy in general - use ratings for noncompetitive elections
and cumulative (fixed-votes) for competitive ones. I suggest that the method
match the results.
----- Original Message -----
From: "MIKE OSSIPOFF" <nkklrp at hotmail.com>
To: <election-methods-list at eskimo.com>
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 9:09 PM
Subject: [EM] What would Tom impose, and how?
> >>I would be interested in experimenting with approval in practice, but
> >not willing to impose it on anyone.
> Excuse me? Did anyone suggest imposing Approval on anyone? In a state,
> county or city initiative, the public could choose Approval. How
> were you considering imposing a voting system on people? Which voting
> system would you impose on people, and how would you impose it?
> As a change from Plurality, Approval doesn't take away anyone's rights.
> It merely adds a freedom which there was never any justification
> for denying in the first place. It removes the unjustifed rule that
> , in the 0-1 point system, a voter must give 0 to all but one candidate.
> When people vote for a compromise, it doesn't require them to falsely
> vote that they like the compromise over their favorite. Instead of
> saying "This candidate is better than this set of candidates", which
> the voter often doesn't really believe, he can say "This set of candidates
> is better than this set." Even if the legislature "imposed"
> Approval, who would be wronged by the changes described in this
> Mike Ossipoff
> For me it is an experiment only.
> >I do plan now that when pollers call me in the future and ask who I
> >I'm going to make an effort to pick two choices I like. Then I expect
> >they'll say they'll put me down as undecided and I'll say NO, I'm decided
> >FOR these two and AGAINST all others. Perhaps it'll get them thinking of
> >making new categories and approval will be born! Well, I can dream.
> >That's my thoughts for now, whatever they are worth.
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Anthony Simmons" <asimmons at krl.org>
> >To: <election-methods-list at eskimo.com>
> >Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 3:37 PM
> >Subject: [EM] Unranked IRV versus Approval
> > > >> From: Tom Ruen
> > > >> Subject: Re: [EM] Unranked IRV versus Approval - divergent winners
> > >
> > > >> My main defense for and attraction to Unranked-IRV is that
> > > >> it satisfies the one vote/seat rule of our current
> > > >> elections. It is a good compromise in my opinion since it
> > > >> is just another way to count approval ballots. I like that
> > > >> approval votes could still be used for measuring support
> > > >> for each party, and split votes can be used to determine
> > > >> elimination order.
> > >
> > > But it's already been demonstrated that whether there is one
> > > vote or more per seat is just a matter of definition. If a
> > > perceived problem turns out to be a trivial technicality that
> > > depends on an arbitrary definition, why should matter?
> > >
> > > What is so special about the number of marks on the paper?
> > > Why is one vote/seat a good rule? Yes, I understand that it
> > > reminds us of what we have now, but if that's what counts,
> > > the best thing we could do is use Plurality, which is as
> > > close as we can get to what we have now.
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
More information about the Election-Methods