Participation & SARC

Wed May 17 16:49:57 PDT 2000

>Mr. Ossipoff wrote--
>(A voting equilibrium is an outcome, including the officially
>reported & recorded count results, that is consistent with
>the predictive beliefs that led people to vote as they did,
>producing that outcome. It's assumed that everyone shares the
>same predictive beliefs and that those beliefs are near-certain).

>D- It's nice to be in the New Age math era where all results are predicted.

Thank you, but it has its drawbacks too. For instance there can
be incorrect predictions. With Approval those wrong predictions
aren't confirmed by the election outcome under the reasonable
conditions I described. You know that results are predicted.
Anyone you talk to will tell you their prediction that the winner
of the Presidential election will be either Gore or Bush. Maybe
so, but maybe that's only true because so many people believe it.
What if all the people who prefer Nader to Gore actually voted for
Nader? If Nader could have a win, then the Gore-Bush prediction
wouldn't be self-fulfilling, with Approval.

>Are folks with 90 political I.Q.'s have the same predictive beliefs as 
>with 150 + political I.Q.'s (the many folks on this list who can dream up 
>ways to mystify majority rule in the single winner case) ???

Maybe people who haven't paid attention to previous elections, and
don't know which poll to trust will find theses things out from
their friends.

>Adding a few more digits-
>49,996 A
>         2 AB
>         2 AC
>25,000 BC
>24,999 CB
>Those strange 2 AB and 2 AC folks are still around.

Sure, but how likely is it that it would be so close that those
few mistaken voters could change the outcome?

>Approval is a major advance over simple plurality but Approval has its own

If you find a method with no problems, tell Gibbard & Satterthwaite.
In the meantime, we want the methods with fewest &/or mildest

Mike Ossipoff

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list