[EM] Dave Ketchum reply, part 2

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

First, to clarify something I was saying before, it can be said that,
with Approval, sometimes a voter doesn't know how to vote, if
knowing how to vote means knowing a way of voting such that after the
election you won't say "I'd have gotten a better outcome if I'd voted
differently". That's what Dave was referring to. And I was replying
that the voter can still know how to _choose_ how to vote, and it
is that which constitutes participation in an Approval election. Everyone 
knows what to do, then, and, by some reasonable approximations,
Approval maximizes the number of people who consider the winner better
than what they'd expected.

In addition to that, though Approval doesn't meet all the strategy
criteria that Condorcet(wv) meets, it still does better than any
practically proposable method other than Condorcet(wv). Besides,
Approval meets a strategy criterion that Condorcet(wv) doesn't meet:
FBC.

Dave continued:

>You seem to be implying that because IRV lets you express your
>preferences, but sometimes ignores them, and Approval doesn't let
>you express all of them, that you believe that IRV is better than
>Approval.


I was not trying to say this - I was only saying that I see problems
with
each. Still, I lean toward IRV a bit, for new equipment that can do IRV
should be able to do Condorcet with little strain. Ballots are
identical,
and counting should be done by replaceable computer programs.

I reply:

It's better to compare Approval and IRV according to their own
merits, rather than what we hope they might later lead to.

Dave continued:

>Approval is free. Voters might prefer that cost-freeness even if
>the budget could afford rank-balloting and rank-counting.


Do you know this, or are you guessing? If you know it, where from?

I reply:

I said "voters _might_ prefer..." Yes I do know that they might.

And you too know that voters are often concerned about cost.
In some reform campaigns that may be more important than in other
reform campaigns.

Dave continued:


ANYWAY, seems to me the proper activist goal is what they see as best.
If
the voters, for whatever reason, are only willing to go halfway at
present, the activists can tolerate that and still be promoting what
they
believe in.

I reply:

Maybe we just have to agree to disagree on that. I don't agree that
it's better to do without reform for however long it takes to get
a better reform when we could have an excellent one immediately.

As someone said, people who've heard about rank balloting will
likely prefer Condorcet to Approval--if they accept that way of counting
the rankings. A big if. I've found that mentioning rank-balloting
gets more enthusiasm than Approval usually gets. But they always
think you're talking about IRV or Borda. When you tell them you aren't,
then you more or less lose them.

Propose Condorcet, and you're depending on the people taking your word
on how to count rankings. They might say "There are so many ways to
count them, why should we beleive that your favorite is best?" They'll
likely be impressed by CVD's glossy brocuhures and big financing &
manpower. As I said, it will often depend on people being willing toi
spend time studying voting systems, and I question how many will
be willing to spend that time before choosing Borda or IRV over
Condorcet. Or choosing Condorcet(margins) over Condorcet(wv)

Mike Ossipoff

Part 3 later.




_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com

----
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), 
please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em