Approval-Ranking Method (ARM)

[Steve Eppley]

Demorep wrote:
> Language has been put into more of a legal form.  The use of 0.5
> votes will guarantee that winners get majorities. 
-snip-

Counting abstention as a "half vote for" and a "half vote against"
appears to be an artificial device to make a plurality look like
a majority, so some clarification would be useful.

How about defining this "majority", and the reason for paying
attention to it, so we can evaluate whether this kind of majority
would be something significant?  The above "majority" claim is
nearly as weak as CV&D's claim that Instant Runoff elects the
candidate with a "true majority." 

Just what is it that Demorep wants to prevent, and why?  If some 
candidate receives 
   0% Yes
   1% No
  99% Abstain
would this mean this candidate has a "majority against" and needs to
be defeated?  If another candidate receives 
   1% Yes
   0% No
  99% Abstain
would this mean this candidate is significantly better than the 
previous candidate and so is qualified to serve?  Perhaps only 
candidates who receive >50% No should be prevented from being 
elected.  I'd like to hear Demorep's reasoning--maybe he has a 
good point, maybe not.

* *

Yes/No ballots seem inherently misleading.  Voters are asked to
evaluate candidates on whatever litmus tests they might have, rather
than on whether the candidates meet specific qualifications for the
office.  And the way Yes/No votes are actually tallied to pick a
winner implies that smart voters should really be comparing the
alternatives to each other, not to some litmus tests.  We can expect
many voters will vote No on qualified candidates for partisan
reasons, in order to help elect their more preferred candidates.

Whatever outcome would result if all candidates receive all No votes 
should itself be an alternative (a "meta-choice") which can be
explicitly ranked.  Using Yes/No input hides the fact they're 
voting a relative preference, misleading the voters.  Remember, 
a No vote is really being tallied as a half-strength relative 
preference for the meta-choice and a full-strength relative
preference for the candidates who receive a Yes.

---Steve     (Steve Eppley    seppley at alumni.caltech.edu)