[EM] What would Tom impose, and how?

[Forest Simmons]

I want to thank Tom for the stimulation he has brought to this EM list.

Thanks, Tom.

I know you have grave reservations about IRV, but you see some value in
runoffs of various types, and you are willing to explore areas that we may
have neglected too much, if there is even a slight possibility that some
useful nugget of insight is awaiting there.

I know also that you are trying to find ways to improve IRV that won't
offend IRV supporters, and that will be palatable to the public, very
worthy causes that overlap (though not coinciding with) those of most of
us on this list.

Forest

On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:

> 
> 
> >
> >I'm sorry, but when I'm advocating change, I'm imposing my views on others.
> 
> You should be sorry, if you're imposing your views on others.
> 
> >I don't feel I have the right to demand two full votes for two candidates 
> >in
> >a competitive elections if others complain that they only get one vote
> >because they only have one favorite.
> 
> As I just said, if the voting public adopt Approval via initiative,
> then no one is imposing it on them.
> 
> If anyone complains because you cast two votes, and they only cast one,
> tell them to cast more votes. They only have one favorite? I only have
> one favorite too, even if I cast 2 votes. The person who doesn't need
> to vote for a compromise, because their favorite has a win, those voters
> are the ones who are advantaged. The one who votes for a compromise
> in addition to favorite, that person is in a worse position, and it's
> odd that you think he should be envied.
> 
> And that 1-vote complainer _is_ casting more than one vote. S/he is
> voting ratings of 1 or 0 for every candidate in the election. If there
> are 10 candidates, then s/he is casting 10 votes of 1 or 0.
> 
> And again, our current Pluarality system requires us to vote "This
> candidate is better than that set of candidates." Approval lets us
> do that, but is more general in allowing us to say "This set of candidates 
> is better than that set of candidates."
> 
> Note that Plurality allows (requires) a set in the second part of that
> statement. Why does it bother you if Approval allows a set in both
> parts of that statement? Why is it ok to allow a set in the 2nd part
> of the statement, but not in the 1st part?
> 
> >
> >Approval gives people 10 votes among 10 candidates, but denies people the
> >right to put more than one vote per candidate. If approval were truly a
> >single election, voters ought to be able to put all 10 votes anywhere, like
> >cumulative voting.
> 
> That's asinine. Who are you to say what an election is? Approval
> is a point system that allows a voter to give each candidate a vote
> of 0 or 1. Approval allows a voter to vote one set of candidates over
> another set of candidates. So often, ignorance is accompanied by
> arrogance. It's more than a little arrogant for you to say what
> a voting systems rules "ought to" be, unless you can cite a compelling
> criterion or standard.
> 
> And anyone stupid enough to cast 10 Approval votes in a 10-candidate
> election deserves what they get: no influence on the outcome.
> 
> >
> >If approval is considered 10 independent elections, then it is fair in that
> >context.
> 
> Except (sometimes) by you, Approval is not considered 10 separrate
> elections.
> 
> If we are measuring which parties deserve public funding, or
> >inclusion into public debates, approval is a wonderful method because there
> >can be many winners
> 
> Wrong. In a public election, it's vanishingly improbable to get more
> than 1 winner. In a small committee, any method is likely to return
> more than 1 winner, Approval no more so than other methods.
> 
> and the government can always allocate more money to
> >
> 
> >Approval is a rating system. Plurality, generalized, is a cumulative system
> >(fixed votes).  Like Don said, if you want to support 2 candidates, give
> >them both half of your voting power. This is what happens in cumulative 
> >vote
> >systems.
> 
> Well if Don said to do that, then you, Tom, should do it.
> 
> But, again, that brings us back to the ignorant arrogance that says
> that voting systems should be the cumulative system, and rating systems
> are a no-no.
> 
> >I CAN defend Unranked IRV on the grounds that as a voter, I ought to have a
> >right to split by support among two candidates. This is a very practical
> >choice in Instant runoffs. I am not taking more than anyone else, just
> >changing how I wish to use my vote. Demanding this right is imposing on the
> >vote counters perhaps, but not other voters.
> 
> Giving all the voters the right to rate each candidate 0 or 1, or
> to vote any set of candidates over any other set of candidates--how
> does that impose on anyone?
> 
> 
> >
> >Approval can't be defended in the same way because it gives new power to
> >some, but not others.
> 
> In Approval, any voter has the power to cancel out any other voter.
> Every voter has the same power to cast any ratings they want to,
> or whatever vote between any two sets of candidates they want to.
> 
> But Tom has shown us something: Sometimes the common Joe sixpack might
> have a difficult time accepting Approval, just as he might have a
> difficult time choosing an adequate rank-count.
> 
> So, for acceptance for the common, ignorant people represented here by
> Tom, I suggest that CR is going to be much better accepted and understood 
> than Approval, and more easily understood than the choice
> between rank-counts.
> 
> CR has the advantage of already being familiar & popular.
> 
> So thank you, Tom, for demonstrating what voting systems will be
> difficult for people of your type to accept. This is the kind of thing
> that is valuable to find out, for choosing a single-winner reform
> proposal.
> 
> Mike Ossipoff
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
> 
>