[EM] Some brief campaign argument (Approval)

[Martin Harper]

> I would like to emphasise that I don't think Approval is a terrible method.
> I actually think it is very good for non-political elections, and certainly
> better than Plurality, IRV, Cardinal Ratings, Borda &c. for political
> elections (except in the case of two very strong candidates and a bunch of
> frivolous candidates, where IRV might be marginally better, but IRV does so
> much worse in any other situation that I don't believe it is a good
> proposal).

I would have thought that this would be a case were Approval works 
especially well: provided people realise which candidates are strong and 
which are frivolous, a sincere vote which approves one of the 
frontrunners and disapproves the other will suffice.

That said, all election methods work well in that case: even IRV - it's 
the tricky cases which are more important...

FFrom election-methods-list-request at eskimo.com  Sat Apr 21 18:44:51 2001
Received: (from smartlst at localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA22619;
	Sat, 21 Apr 2001 18:43:42 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 18:43:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: DEMOREP1 at aol.com
Message-ID: <c8.13ab0965.28139118 at aol.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 21:42:48 EDT
Subject: RE: Voting on matters of pure fact
To: election-methods-list at eskimo.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type:  text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding:  7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0.1 for Mac sub 85
Resent-Message-ID: <"Izzco2.0.8X5.BTZuw"@mx2>
Resent-From: election-methods-list at eskimo.com
Reply-To: election-methods-list at eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <election-methods-list at eskimo.com> archive/latest/5932
X-Loop: election-methods-list at eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: election-methods-list-request at eskimo.com

Mr. Simmons wrote in part---

It's an interesting question -- is it meaningful to vote on a
pure matter of objective fact?  Whatever the answer to that
question, I think a more practical question is:  does it
affect the choice of election method.
----
D- Functional laws operate as follows-

If such and such fact exists, then a person [shall, shall not, may] do such 
and such.   [criminal punishment and/or civil remedy].

With many anytime and anyplace *absolute* criminal laws the if clause is 
dropped (or the crime is made part of the if clause--- e.g. If one commits 
premediated murder [of a human being] [making *facts* about the premediated 
murder], then he/she shall be imprisoned for life.

rom election-methods-list-request at eskimo.com  Sat Apr 21 18:44:52 2001
Received: (from smartlst at localhost)
	by mx2.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) id SAA22574;
	Sat, 21 Apr 2001 18:43:25 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 18:43:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: DEMOREP1 at aol.com
Message-ID: <4a.14ab0b94.28139116 at aol.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 21:42:46 EDT
Subject: Re: Some brief campaign argument
To: election-methods-list at eskimo.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type:  text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding:  7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0.1 for Mac sub 85
Resent-Message-ID: <"gIvYL2.0.fW5.ySZuw"@mx2>
Resent-From: election-methods-list at eskimo.com
Reply-To: election-methods-list at eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <election-methods-list at eskimo.com> archive/latest/5931
X-Loop: election-methods-list at eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: election-methods-list-request at eskimo.com

Which methods on the ballot *require* some sort of majority  ???

26 A
25 B
49 Z
100


A and B (a divided majority) have some sort of connection. Z has nothing to 
do with A or B.

What encourages/ requires/ forces a second choice vote ???

In real elections, of course, both a/the majority and a/the minority might be 
split into more parts.