[EM] Another article on the Australian controversy

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

>> >As I said, that objection implies that Plurality is better than
> >rank or approval balloting, but Plurality's corruption problem is
> >worse than any crooked how-to-vote card.
>
>I don't think that anyone's suggesting that Plurality is necessarily better
>when looking at corruption as a whole, but these are problems that are
>specific to preferential voting.

Well, the proposal is to replace IRV with Plurality because of it,
meaning that someone believes that, overall, Plurality is better
than a rank method. I don't care if they replace IRV, but, as someone
pointed out, that same unreasonable criticism could be used against
Condorcet or Approval, which is why I wanted to comment.

The suggestions you list sound helpful, especially banning
the pushing of how-to-vote cards at the polling place, and payments
from one party to another; and getting rid of compulsory full
ranking.

But voters should be encouraged to vote how _they_ feel. Of course
there's nothing wrong with accepting advice from people believed to
know more about the other candidates, but that should be done
skeptically.

Mike Ossipoff



_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com