[EM] Easy voting & handcount. Approval vs RV.

[Dave Ketchum]

I applaud this statement, though not agreeing with all of its details.

While we can learn by participating in polls, we need to remember that our 
proper goal is assisting average voters in elections.  By participating in 
this group we become something other than average voters.

On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 13:55:10 +0000 Michael Ossipoff wrote:
> 
> 
> Before saying more, I want to say that, in spite of anything that I say 
> below here, SSD is what I want for public elections.
> 
> If you've ever participated in an EM poll, the ones where we use all 
> sorts of balloting, then you know that ranking is _lots_ easier than 
> rating. And you know that, especially when there are lots of candidates, 
> Approval is easier than ranking.
> 
> In fact, Approval's very easy voting and handcount, in EM polls, will 
> give you a new appreciation for Approval.
> 
> In general, I much prefer Approval to RV (in its versions other than 
> Approval). Approval has a simple elegance and beauty that RV doesn't 
> even come close to. In Approval, a sincere vote is essentially the same 
> as a strategic vote.
> 
> And, though Approval doesn’t give you the kind of expressiveness that 
> Condorcet does, it gives you another kind of expressiveness that 
> rank-balloting can’t give: Expressiveness about _how_ good or bad a 
> candidate is. You express that when you vote for him/her or not. You can 
> rank all the candidates in order of preference, but that doesn’t tell 
> which ones are disgusting. With Approval you say something that you 
> don’t say in a ranking.

Perhaps we need to debate need for ranking all the candidates with 
Condorcet.  There is no such need, and demanding more ranking than might 
be useful can even end up with false ranking if voters are forced to 
pretend to decide value of candidates that do not interest them positively.

Those voters who find they can fully express their desires in a race with 
Approval, should be allowed to express EXACTLY the same desires with 
Condorcet with the same effort.

But Condorcet provides the ability for voters to say something more for 
any race for which they feel need - to rank as 1 those candidates they 
like best, as 2 those candidates they want considered if none of the ones 
win, etc.  Having 1/2/blank is the minimum to be Condorcet; 1..9/blank 
means so little extra election effort as to be the obvious next step; even 
more ranks are possible if anyone can justify the effort.
> 
> Yes, I’d rather have SSD, but if it’s to be a handcount, or there are 
> lots of candidates,  and you might not want to ask people to rank that 
> many candidates, then the much easier Approval offers a very good 
> substitute for Condorcet’s expressiveness, Approval’s own kind of 
> expressiveness. Approval would be my 2nd choice then.

To me, depends on what kind of expressiveness I wish for in a particular 
race, after I have informally ranked the candidates:

There is one candidate at the top of my list, and I offer nothing for the 
possibility that that candidate may lose:  Plurality would FULLY satisfy 
my desires.  Other methods that let me express my desires, such as 
Condorcet or Approval, would be fine PROVIDED they gave me as much control 
without additional effort, for I realize I could desire their 
expressiveness in other races.

There is more than one candidate at the top of my list, and I care not 
which of them may win.  I offer nothing for the possibility that all of 
them may lose:  Plurality cannot do this but Approval would FULLY satisfy 
my desires for expressiveness.  Other methods that let me express my 
desires, such as Condorcet, would be fine PROVIDED they gave me as much 
control without additional effort, for I realize I could desire their 
expressiveness in other races.

There is more than one candidate at the top of my list.  I care among them 
which I most desire and wish to express these differences.  I offer 
nothing for the possibility that all of them may lose:  Plurality or 
Approval cannot do this but Condorcet would FULLY satisfy my desires. 
Other methods that let me express my desires, such as RV may, would be 
fine PROVIDED they gave me as much control without additional effort.

Agreed handcounts are difficult for Condorcet with many candidates, which 
makes me desire better quality than too many DREs offer.
> 
> RV lets you express fine gradation of preference? Illusory. RV’s 
> strategy problem stifles expressiveness more than it provides it.
> 
> Now, having said all that about Approval vs. RV, I have to also say 
> that, due to the special situation in our elections, RV would probably 
> give a better result than Approval in our public elections, in spite of 
> Approval’s general superiority to RV, and in spite of Approval’s great 
> aesthetic superiority to RV.
> 
> I’ve also talked about RV’s much greater familiarity and popularity, and 
> people’s widespread misunderstanding about Approval and 
> “1-person-1-vote”.  So RV is probably a good public proposal, if SSD 
> turned out to be un-gettable. 

Seems to me need is for better education as to need for and ability of 
Condorcet - as well as RV.
> 
> By the way, I highly recommend another EM poll. In fact I recommend that 
> we do them regularly. You don’t know how you feel about the voting 
> systems and balloting systems until you actually vote them and count 
> them. Take my word for it. In EM polls I substitute Cloneproof SSD for 
> SSD. CSSD is equivalent to BeatpathWinner, the easier, but less 
> obviously-motivated and justified,  implementation of CSSD.
> 
> When we do a poll, I suggest using rank-balloting, Approval balloting, 
> and ratings. I suggest asking voters to vote sincerely, not 
> strategically in the ratings, since the Approval ballot takes care of 
> strategic voting.
> 
> When a definite answer isn’t desired, it’s enough to just get answers 
> from the various methods used. When a definite answer is desired from a 
> multi-mode poll, then I suggest Voter’s Choice, which we’ve used in past 
> multi-mode polls.
> 
> Mike Ossipoff
-- 
  davek at clarityconnect.com    people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
  Dave Ketchum   108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY  13827-1708   607-687-5026
            Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
                  If you want peace, work for justice.