Non-votes aren't half-votes.

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

>Mr. O. wrote --
>
>I've always said that if it turns out to  be impossible to get a good rank
>method enacted, then Approval should be proposed.
>--
>D- I do not Mr. O. was on the EM list when I noted that Approval is 
>defective
>because it lacks number voting and head to head pairing.

Of course. That's why it's Approval and not pairwise-count.
But Approval is much better than any but the very best rank-count
methods. That's why I said that if we can't get a _good_
rank-count, then we're better off with Approval.



>
>True rankings
>
>47 A
>4   AB
>48 B
>1   C
>
>100
>
>A has a true first choice majority (51).  B wins using Approval (52 B).
>(i.e. the 4 AB voters by making second choices defeat their first choice).
>
>In close elections the leading candidate(s) would try to discourage second,
>etc. choices if Approval was being used.  The Approval defect lead to
That depends on the merits of the candidates and the various
frontrunner probabilities.

>I also note that Approval voting in effect gives tie votes to each of the
>candidates voted for (i.e. one vote to each choice voted for).

Sure, because it isn't a rank method.

I personally like a _good_ rank method, but not a bad one.

>
>BUT, for executive and judicial offices there are highest majority reasons 
>to
>use Approval at least temporarily even with its defect until number voting 
>is
>used.

Yes, good point. If it will take a long time to get a good
rank method adopted, then there's no reason not to at least
do Plurality right in the meantime, which means using Approval
in the meantime. That's true even if you strongly prefer a
rank method to Approval.

Mike Ossipoff



______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com