The vote is not a single purpose tool.

[Mike Ositoff]

On Fri, 2 Oct 1998, Charles Fiterman wrote:

> 
> 
> I agree, maybe ranked preference should be counted backwards
> 
> eliminating the person with the most 4's first etc. This way
> 
> instead of electing the most liked we elect the least hated.
> 

That's Coomb's method. A pretty good method, but not as good
as VA. Its disadvantage is that it does require strategy, and
its strategy is of a kind unfamiliar to voters. So I don't
propose it. If rank-balloting is desired, then I like VA. But
my recommendation is Approval, for winnability, to avoid
having to argue & explain rank-counting to people who aren't
going to understand its complex issues.





> 
> I no longer vote against people, I only vote for people and 
> 
> if there is no one to vote for I leave it blank. The vote
> 
> is not a single purpose tool it affects your self respect. 
> 
> People who vote dishonestly often end up non voters. Voting
> 
> for minor parties affects their chances in future elections
> 
> and the prestige of their issues.
> 
> 
> So an important issue in choosing these methods is that the
> 
> vote be fully counted. Minor parties need to know how well
> 
> they did no matter how badly that is.


That's an advantage of Approval, because favorites always get
people's vote. No, 1st choice status isn't expressed, but can
usually be inferred.

Mike
 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> <color><param>8080,0000,0000</param>
> 
> Charles Fiterman		  Geodesic Systems
> 
> 414 North Orleans Suite 410	  Phone 312 832 1221 x223
> 
> Chicago IL 60610-4418           FAX   312 832 1230
> 
> 				  http://www.geodesic.com
> 
> 
> </color>As the complexity of a system increases our ability to make
> 
> precise and yet significant statements about its behavior
> 
> diminishes until a threshold is reached beyond which precision
> 
> and significance or relevance become almost mutually exclusive
> 
> characteristics. -- Lofti Zadeh
> 
>