[EM] please remove from list

[J Bravo]

hi.

i would appreciate my removal from your mailing list.

thanks.

best.

jb


On Fri, 6 Oct 2000, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:

> 
> When I said that, in addition to probably being easier to get,
> Approval will probably work better in use than Condorcet will,
> I didn't mean to imply that Condorcet should never be proposed.
> 
> So let me say what I believe should be proposed when:
> 
> 1. Both Approval & Condorcet should be proposed where IRV is proposed.
> That's because the IRVies have already got some people convinced that
> they want rank balloting, and, additionally, preventing IRV is the
> main goal there. So offer both, to maximize the liklihood of
> beating the IRVies. Opposing IRV's money, membership hordes, and
> promotional zeal, on the issue of how to count ballots, sounds like
> a losing proposition. Therefore, even when proposing both Approval
> & Condorcet where IRV is being proposed, Approval should be the main
> proposal, the main recommendation under those conditions.
> 
> Of course when advising an initiative committee, or a legislator
> who asks for all the facts, one should mention both, rather than
> withold information, but, except under the previous paragraph's
> conditions, it should be recommended that a certain one of those 2
> methods be chosen instead of the other.
> 
> 2. Approval should be be the proposal when it's a special one-time
> sort of opportunity to get a proposal considered. In that instance,
> we want the one most likely to be adopted, and most likely to be
> understood & used well by the voters. Don't take a chance of blowing
> a big one-time opportunity.
> 
> 3. In a few particular experimantal trials, where IRV isn't being
> proposed, and it isn't a special one time sort of oppotunity to get
> a proposal considered, Condorcetists might want to try for the best,
> as they believe it to be. I don't suggest that Condorcet should
> always be the proposal whenever IRV isn't involved and it isn't a
> special one-time opportunity. Maybe, instead, Condorcet should be
> the proposal in a few selected experiments, with Approval proposed more
> often.
> 
> Of course, when proposing reform to a group that's already using
> rank-balloting, Condorcet would be a better proposal, if that group
> has shown that it has the courage to vote sincerely with rank-balloting.
> Likewise with groups or areas where people are already strongly
> interested in rank balloting--if they can be convinced about how
> to count the ballots--a _big if_. Rank balloting seems to elicit a
> more enthusiastic response than Approval, when mentioned to someone
> whose primary concern isn't cost, and who wants reform--but, regrettably,
> that person almost invariably thinks you're talking about either Borda
> or IRV. When they're told that's no good, and told about pairwise
> counting, there sometimes seems to be a lessening of the enthusiasm,
> because the proposal isn't what they thought it was. If rank balloting
> is what they can get with, and if they accept Condorcet instead of
> Borda or IRV, then Condorcet would make sense--if the entire group
> is like that. But if how to count rank ballots is a hopeless or
> longlasting disagreement, then Approval would be the better proposal
> then too.
> 
> Mike Ossipoff
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
> 
> Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at 
> http://profiles.msn.com.
> 
>