[EM] Approval Voting vs Instant Runoff Voting

[Bart Ingles]

LAYTON Craig wrote:
> 
> I won't copy any of the messages on this topic, but I'll just comment
> generally;
> 
> Mike, I agree with you.  Condorcet is better than Approval.  That's
> basically what I'm arguing.  I think that there are a number of posters who
> now prefer Approval to Condocet (and, who are possibly in the majority).
> Like you and Forest who don't consider Gore to be an acceptable compromise,
> I don't see Approval to be an acceptable compromise.
> 
> I still think that IRV is slightly better for political elections in the
> current 2 party climate, but Approval is much better for non-political
> elections, or if a multi-party environment eventuated.  (Approval is
> definately superior generally, but while there are only two candidates with
> a reasonable chance of winning, IRV is more reliable).
> 
> Okay, don't innundate me with anti-IRV messages for that (please!).  I know
> how bad a system it is when there are more than two candidates with a chance
> of winning.
> 
> 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.  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).  It has been pointed out, quite rightly (by either Mike or
> Forest) that, even though the Nader supporters knew that they might cost
> Gore the election, they went ahead and voted for him anyway.  Many of these
> voters would vote for only Nader in an Approval election, especially those
> who honestly believe that he's got a good chance of winning.
> 
> Okay, so they do this, and Bush wins by a tiny margin and some help from his
> brother.  This is despite the fact that Gore is preferred to Bush by a
> majority of voters.  I really don't think it's relevant what the utility
> values of the voters were, or how many were prepared to use strategy and how
> many weren't, or whether the voters were risk takers or not...  it just
> isn't a democratic result - the majority prefer another candidate.

If utility isn't relevant here, I don't see how it could be relevant
anywhere.  The Nader voters had an opportunity to express a preference
for Gore over Bush, and they chose not to.  This was certainly not
because of some illusion that Nader had a chance of winning, at least
under the present system.  They obviously don't like Gore.  

You go on to allow that these Nader voters would have bullet-voted under
Approval rules.  What makes you think they would have done otherwise
with ranked balloting?  Or that some of them wouldn't have ranked Bush
second?

Maybe your difficulty with the outcome has more to do with your distaste
for the "extreme-right world of American politics" than with any
objective problem with the actual election.  Would your assessment have
been the same if Pat Buchanan had spoiled the election for Bush?

I see no evidence that a majority preferred any of the candidates. 
While I agree that it's nice to have a majority winner where possible, I
don't agree that a manufactured majority is better than none at all. 
There is nothing in the definition of democracy that requires this. 
Perhaps having grown up with IRV, the IRV-style majority feels 'right'
or 'traditional' or 'democratic' to you, but a more historical view of
democracy would probably consider IRV to be 'undemocratic'.

If a majority winner is important, then the best way to achieve this is
to encourage good candidates to run, and make sure they can do so
without fear of being a spoiler.  I think most of us can agree that
Approval is hands-down better at this than IRV.

Incidentally, it appears that even the definition of the word 'majority'
is not entirely clear-cut.  Apparently the word originally meant roughly
the same as 'plurality', and is still listed that way as one of several
dictionary definitions.

Bart