[EM] The Demise of the Compromise Candidate:

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

,

Tom Ruen wrote:  "I'd still like an answer from you: Which do you prefer
with single rank ballots - Approval or Plurality? Both support runoff
methods."


I reply: Approval. Approval is Plurality done right.

Don:  Plurality is my answer, because Plurality will always elect the
majority candidate whenever there is a majority candidate.  Approval may
elect many of them, but not all of them.

If Plurality elects a genuine majority candidate, it's because his
supporters know that he had a win, and voted for him instead of
compromising. In Approval, if his supporters know he has a win,
then they'll vote for him only.

Don't let Don's confusion convince you that Approval is to complicated.
It isn't too complicated for most. Unless we want zero-info
strategy with very few voters :-) Richard pointed out that now we
have no such  stratgegy, but no doubt he'll write one. I'd try to
beat him to it, but I've been neglecting my anti-IRV letter-writing
responsibilities too long).

By the way, if we do a demonstration poll, maybe we should leave
Approval out of it, since it will be a 0-info election with only a
few voters. We'd be at a loss for Approval strategy under those
conditions, thanks to Richard :-)

Tom:  "For example, If you were in a room with 100 people and had to
collectively choose one of 10 choices (assuming no previous coalitions
formed - everyone is voting blind on their own intuition) and you had to
make a decision within 15 minutes, would you rather use approval-votes
runoffs or single votes in a runoff? A single majority candidate means the
same thing in both cases."

Use Approval. There's no reason not to allow people to vote for more
than 1. But hold a preliminary balloting, to show people how far they
need to compromise in the 2nd balloting. If no alternative gets a
vote total exceeding half the numbe of voters, in the 1st balloting,
then hold a 2nd balloting by Approval. The 1st balloting could be
by Approval or with rankings. Or, if a 1-dimensional issue space
exists, Plurality could be good for the 1st balloting.

Regrettably, a preliminary balloting isn't so feasible with our
demonstation poll, since it's desirable not to ask people to vote
additional times.

Don's repeated balloting proposal is almost the same as Robert's Rules
of Order's suggestion for voting in meetings. The difference is that
Don suggests limiting the number of ballotings to one less than the
number of alternatives. Don's proposal is identical to one that I
proposed on EM, some years ago, except that mine used Approval.

Of course Cloneproof SSD seems the very best for meetings. If
voting is by show of hands, rather than by initially unknown paper
ballots, then, after the count is completed and displayed, give people
the opportunity to truncate their rankings, and recount the ballots
if anyone chooses to truncate. This would also be a good idea for
a Condorcet vote on a mailing list like this.

If there isn't time to do Condorcet--lots of voters &/or alternatives,
and no computer, then use Approval, with a preliminary balloting.
That's quicker than the exhaustive balloting of Robert's Rules, or
my modification, with Approval & N-1 ballotings.

Exhaustive balloting, with approval & N-1 ballotings at most, would
be good too, if there's time. It's less time-consuming than Condorcet,
but moreso than Approval.

There's a line of argument by which Exhaustive balloting leads to
Sequential Pairwise, a familiar way of voting in meetings. SP is
good, as long as voters watch for apparent offensive order-reversal,
and then punish it by voting against the perpetrator's alternative when
it comes to vote. SP is intermediate between Approval & Cloneproof SSD.
It's slightly quicker than exhaustive balloting by Approval, but
similar to exahautive balloting by Plurality in time requirement.

Mike Ossipoff

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