[EM] Some brief campaign argument

[Richard Moore]

Anthony Simmons wrote:

> I wonder if other methods have this same characteristic even
> if they don't seem to.  IRV, for example, allows you to
> specify a complete ranking, but during the actual counting,
> at any given time, you are either voting for a candidate or
> you aren't.  While this looks like a ranking on paper, it
> seems to function more like Sequential Approval.  Much like
> Approval, except that instead of approving the lot all at
> once, you approve and disapprove in turns.

I don't buy the comparison. A more apt description would be
Sequential Plurality.

Approval works the way it does because all expressed preferences
are counted in parallel. Break that parallelism up and you've
fundamentally altered the method.

Richard