[EM] Arguments against disapproval. Demorep reply re: notation.

[Mike Ossipoff]

DEMOREP1 at aol.com writes:
> 
> Just a little more on the basics.
> 
>          A.  It is possible to rank disapproved candidates in reverse order
> (if candidates lose with majority disapproval is to be a feature of single
> winner reform). This is reverse of the positive 100 percent to 0 percent
> approval ranking (i.e. negative 100 percent to 0 percent disapproval ranking.
> Thus
> -1  Most disapproved
> -2  Second most disapproved
> -3  Third most disapproved
> Etc.
> 
> Thus a voter's ballot might be
> A  5
> B  -2
> C   2
> D   -1
> E   4
> F   1
> G   3
> H   -3
> 
> producing a Condorcet ranking of 
> F  1
> C  2
> G  3
> E  4     
> A  5
> H  -3
> B  -2
> D  -1
> 

What's wrong with:

F 1
C 2
G 3
E 4
A 5
H 6 D
B 7 D
D 8 D

Where "D" means that you disapprove.

Or:

F 1
C 2
G 3
E 4
A 5
---- (disapproval line)
H 6
B 7
D 8

***

These ways representing the ranking & the disapproval would
be more natural & easier.

OR

F 1
C 2
G 3
E 4
A 5
NOTB 6
H 7
B 8
D 9

***

But disapproval voting, in whatever form, could result in much
flak if it leaves us without a President. 

Also, for practical purposes, it doesn't seem to me that one would
want to disapprove of someone in their ranking. That's because
you include somone in your ranking only if you think you might
need them as a compromise, the best you can get. If you then 
disapprove that candidate, you're defeating your purpose in ranking
him.

Though I was joking about Clinton, if you list him 2nd, but put a
"D" by his name, because you (absolutely) disapprove of him, though
you've ranked him because you'd rather have him than Dole, and if
the Dole voters have also disapproved him, then there goes your
compromse. If you really want the protection of voting for him as
a compromise, then you don't want to disapprove him. So disapproval
doesn't seem useful in voting.

And if disapproval were included as an option, it should never be
assumed that not ranking someone meant disapproval, because then
the harmless lazy practice of voting a short ranking could be
interpreted in a strong way that you didn't mean.

One could still disapprove candidates that one doesn't need as a
compromise. But you're already voting against them, ranking everyone
else over them. If the Clinton-Nader majority rank Clinton over Dole,
Dole can't possibly win unless his voters, with help from other voters,
can make both Clinton & Nader more beaten than Dole. To do that, he
needs Clinton voters ranking Dole over Nader. But any Clinton voter
who'd do that wouldn't disapprove Dole, for the reason given above.

In other words, if we could muster a majority to disapprove Dole,
then, in ordinary Condorcet, Dole couldn't get a majority ranking
him over Nader anyway (since there's a majority who'd disapprove him,
and therefore wouldn't rank him), and so Dole could never be less
beaten than Nader, and Dole order-reversal could only elect Nader.

And, without order-reversal, the mere fact that a majority (Clinton
& Nader voters) rank Clinton over Dole is sufficient to keep Dole
from winning.

So the disapproval count isn't needed in Condorcet's method. And
it could get single-winner reform in trouble when the tv 
commentators & newspaper columnists blame single-winner reform on the
fact that there's no President (or State Senator, etc.).

> If the feature (candidates lose with majority disapproval) is not being used,
> then, of course, H, B and D would be ranked 6, 7 and 8 respectively.
> 
> .-
> 


--