point systems use more information?

[Mike Ositoff]

I left this list some time ago, saying that I was retiring, but
I'd like to briefly postpone that retirement. If you were here
when I was here before, I should mention that my name is
probably mis-spelled in the "From:" line of this message. My
name is Ossipoff, not Ositoff.

Someone told me that the comment had been made that point
systems have the advantage that they use more information  than
rank-balloting methods use (I'm talking about single-winner
methods).

But are you that you want all information used? :-)  For
instance, with our Plurality system, we use the information
about whether you'd rather abandon your favorite, or risk
not casting an effective vote against your last choice--the
famous lesser-of-2-evils problem. So maybe it isn't always
good to use more information. For another example, what
about the information about whether a person would rather give
his wallet to a mugger, or face the mugger's wrath? Surely none
of us want to be in the position of having to give that information
& have it used. That's information about a preference of ours that
we don't want used. The analogy to point systems is actually
a close one, because, like PLurality, they mug you by forcing
you to choose between casting a full vote for Favorite over
Compromise, or for Compromise over Worst.

The Lesser-of-Two-Evils problem is gotten rid of when we
can cast a full-strength, reliably-counted vote for Favorite
over everything, & also for our "lesser-evil(s) over our lasts
choice.

Another argument I've heard is that we take the lesser-of-2-evils
problem too seriously. Well, that's the strategy dilemma that
all the progressive voters I've spoken with are cowed by &
dominated by. Progressives who vote Democrat, for instance,
always cite the lesser-of-2-evils problem as the reason for
their insincere voting, their reluctant abandonment of their
favorite, for someone for whom they must "hold their nose".

Mike Ossipoff