[EM] Approval Voting vs Instant Runoff Voting

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

>I still think that IRV is slightly better for political elections in the
>current 2 party climate

By what precisely-stated criteria?

When it's clear that there are only 2 candidates who have any
chance, then Approval strategy is very simple: Vote for whichever
of those 2 you like best, and also for everyone whom you like more.

Sure, you can say that, in that special situation, IRV lets
you vote Nader 1st, if you know that he hasn't got a chance.
But you agree that IRV looks worse when more parties are winnable.
But isn't that what we want voting reform for? Do we want a method
that fails when it isn't assured that only 2 candidates have any
chance?




, but Approval is much better for non-political
>elections, or if a multi-party environment eventuated.

But maybe that muliti-party situation is more likely to arrive if
we use a voting system that won't start failing under those
conditions. Maybe IRV, like Plurality, can keep it a 2-party
system.


  (Approval is
>definately superior generally, but while there are only two candidates with
>a reasonable chance of winning, IRV is more reliable).

I wouldn't say that Approval is unreliable under those conditions.
People who prefer one of those 2 to the other (I don't) know for
sure that their best strategy is to vote for whichever of those
two they like better, and for everyone whom they like better.


>One last example.  Gore-Nader-Bush is still a popular example.  Despite the
>protestations of Nader supporters, I really don't think the guy had a 
>chance
>of winning.

That's what we'll find out when we have a better voting system
like Approval or Condorcet.



>In the extreme-right world of American politics, he is a very
>extreme candidate, and wouldn't be likely to attract votes beyond his core
>support base (mainly middle class university educated voters in cities, I
>would imagine).

But, as I said, I couldn't find anyone who voted for Gore who
said that Gore is as good as Nader.

Yes, the media make it sound as if Nader is too extreme for anyone
to like him. No, he's just too extreme for the big-money media to
like him.

Ask a person. They'll tell you that Nader is better, or probably
better, but that it would be a wasted vote, and that we must be
pragmatic. But when everyone is following eachother, to be "pragmatic", I 
question how pragmatic that really is.

Mike Ossipoff


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com