[EM] Reply to Dave Ketchum, re: Approval

[Dave Ketchum]

On Tue, 25 Jun 2002 23:11:14 +0000 MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:

> 
> Dave wrote:
> 
> MANY voters can understand wanting to be able to say: I prefer Nader; I
> can tolerate Gore as a second choice; my dislike for Bush requires that I
> mark him as less desirable than Gore.
> 
> Condorcet lets me say this, and expect to be heard when the votes are 
> counted.
> 
> IRV lets me say this, but I cannot depend on their noticing.
> 
> Approval does not even let me say it.
> 
> I reply:
> 
> 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.

> 
> Note that though Approval doesn't let you express all your preferences,
> it reliably counts every pairwise preference that you express, and
> that typically people will find that they're voting about half of
> their pairwise preferences.
> 
> Also, though Approval can have you voting Gore equal to Nader, if
> you think you need to vote for Gore, you're forgetting that IRV
> can make it necessary to vote Gore over Nader, your favorite, if
> it looks to you as if Nader will eliminate Gore and then lose to Bush.
> 
> So your criticism of Approval in comparison is misleading, ignoring
> that IRV will sometimes not merely not let you vote your preference
> of Nader over Gore, but will sometimes force you to vote Gore over
> Nader, reversing that preferences instead of merely not voting it.


AGAIN, it is Condorcet that I prefer.

> 
> Dave continued:
> 
> Thus I believe in promoting Condorcet as the desired goal, rather than
> promoting and getting Approval and then needing a second effort stating
> the achieved goal was unsatisfactory and we need to change again:
> 
> I reply:
> 
> If you believe that both methods are equally likely to be accepted,
> and you prefer Condorcet, then of course you should propose Condorcet
> instead of Approval. But if Approval seems to have a significantly
> better chance, due to its cost-free implementation, &/or its
> extreme simplicity, &/or its minimal change from Plurality, etc.,
> and it's going to be a costly campaign and you have to choose one or
> the other, then Approval is then the better choice. Also, if you
> want immediate improvement, and an unsuccessful Condorcet effort would
> delay the voting reform by a year or 2, that too would be a reason
> to try Approval instead.
> 
> If, on the other hand, you're willing & able to try both methods
> in succession, and you aren't in any hurry for results--you don't
> mind waiting for an unsuccessful Condorcet proposal before you
> try Approval, a few years later, then Condorcet would be the thing
> to start with if you prefer Condorcet.
> 
> I shouldn't make any blanket statements about which is the better
> proposal, since, as you or someone else pointed out, there are
> some audiences who'd prefer Condorcet, since IRV has introduced them
> to rankings. I'd say that the matter of which is the more practical
> proposal must be judged case by case, community by community.
> 
> The activists, the progressive electoral reformers, in your community
> might much prefer Condorcet to Approval, due to rankings. But
> maybe the average voter might prefer Approval because it's less of
> a departure from Plurality. Approval isn't a completely new voting
> system; it's merely Plurality done right.


I keep hearing you say that - I remain UNconvinced that Approval is that 
simple - after you tell me I can select more than one, I have to decipher 
how many is a reasonable selection in each case.

Condorcet voting looks simple to me:  Pick the one you like best; pick the 
one you like best of what is left; repeat until doing more does not seem 
worth the effort - you are voting the remaining rejects as equally 
undesirable.

> 
> So it isn' so easy to say which is the more winnable proposal.
> 
> You continued:
> 
> If Approval was basically free, and current budgets would not
> support going to Condorcet
> 
> I reply:
> 
> 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?

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.

> 
> You continued:
> 
> , Approval would be an acceptable temporary step.
> If making any improvement would cost money, then lets go to
> Condorcet in one step.
> 
> I reply:
> 
> If Approval is a surer winner than Condorcet, and we want immediate
> improvement, without waiting for a Condorcet initiative to lose,
> then Approval is the way to go.
> 
> You continued:
> 
> If some current equipment supports Approval and some only plurality,
> 
> I reply:
> 
> Doesn't every county have an at-large board of supervisors? In
> that case, each county has provision for accepting & counting votes
> for several candidates per ballot.


WRONG, TWICE:
      Presumably some counties still have the arrangement that inspired 
the label - supervisors elected individually and then meeting as a board.
      Some counties have legislatures:
           Broome, just east of where I live, has a legislature.  I 
believe that, assuming an X member legislature, the county is divided into 
X districts with equal population, each electing 1 legislator.
           Tioga, where I live, has 9 towns and 9 members in its 
legislature.  Their game of districting has 3 towns electing 2 
legislators, but the 2 cannot both come from the same town.

New York City is being told by the courts to let their voting machines be 
used as state law directs.  Do not think the law had changed recently, but 
the city had feared the machines breaking if they obeyed the law.

Anyway, question is whether equipment built 60-70 years ago can be used in 
a way its makers may not have planned on.  You DO NOT KNOW unless someone 
has actually tried that use and/or is familiar enough with actual machine 
design to answer based on that.

> 
> Sure, technological improvements in balloting equipment could later
> make a Condorcet proposal feasible, if Condorcet is initially
> unfeasible due to lack of rank-balloting equipment, and you don't
> want the inconvenience of using ordinary balloting equipment for
> rank balloting.
> 
> I don't want to discourage Condorcetists from proposing Condorcet,
> because sometimes, in some communities, it might be a feasible
> proposal.
> 
> But on this list, about half of "Condorcetists" are actually
> Margins advocates. If your Condorcet proposal is going to result
> in a margins vs wv fight, forget about it and propose Approval instead.


THIS IS a significant topic.  Best I can propose right now is to lock both 
groups in a closet until they get their differences sorted out in private.

> 
> That fight won't inspire much confidence in voters. Of course if
> there are no other Condorcet advocates in your community, and no
> outsiders will come in (I'll be there if you propose Margins)
> then go ahead and propose the Condorcet of your choice.
> 
> Mike Ossipoff

-- 
  davek at clarityconnect.com    http://www.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
   Dave Ketchum    108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY  13827-1708    607-687-5026
              Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
                    If you want peace, work for justice.

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