[EM] Maximum Consent

[Buddha Buck]

Blake Cretney <bcretney at postmark.net> writes:

R> On Mon, 6 Aug 2001 12:26:25 -0700 (PDT)
> Forest Simmons <fsimmons at pcc.edu> wrote:
>  
> > An ordinary Approval ballot has important relevant information
> > that cannot be deduced from a preference ballot.
> > 
> > Although a preference ballot may have a greater quantity of
> > information, the Approval ballot has the most relevant information
> > for consent of the governed: i.e. which candidates could the voter
> > willingly give consent to.
> 
> I'm not even sure that that it is a meaningful statement.
> 
> It makes sense to say that I consent to be governed by A, if the
> alternative is B.  That is, I prefer A to B.  But then I might consent
> to B if the alternative is C.  You seem to suggest that it is
> meaningful to say that I consent to A, independent of my other
> options.

Given four candidates for President: Al Gore, Pat Buchanan, Yog
Shuggoth, or Cthulhu.

If my friend Barb and I were given plurality ballots, Our ballots would
probably look like so:

  Buddha                 Barb
   [Y]     Al Gore       [Y]
   [ ]   Pat Buchanan    [ ]
   [ ]   Yog Shuggoth    [ ]
   [ ]     Cthulhu       [ ]

If we were given ranked ballots, we'd end up with

   [1]     Al Gore       [1]
   [3]   Pat Buchanan    [2]
   [2]   Yog Shuggoth    [3]
   [4]     Cthulhu       [4]

If we were given approval ballots, we'd get

   [Y]     Al Gore       [N]
   [N]   Pat Buchanan    [N]
   [N]   Yog Shuggoth    [N]
   [N]     Cthulhu       [N]

Only on the approval ballot does Barb get to indicate that she doesn't
consent to be governed by Al Gore.

> 
> ---
> Blake Cretney