[EM] Yes/No Voting

[Alex Small]

MIKE OSSIPOFF said:
> But someone wrote to me suggesting a method that has both of those
> advantages: Yes/No voting:
>
> Each voter may give a candidate "Yes", "No", or nothing. A candidate's
> No votes are subtracted from his Yes votes, and the result is his
> score. The candidate with highest score wins.

I've sometimes used the name "Yes/No Voting" to describe Approval.
Saying that you indicate yes or no for each candidate and the candidate
with the most yeses wins seems more appealing to some people than saying
you vote for as many candidates as you want.  Maybe the idea of multiple
votes evokes images of Chicago cemetaries, or Floridians voting for
Buchanan and Gore.  In any case, "Yes/No Voting" seems an accurate
description of Approval.

This method you propose seems more complicated in its description than
0, 1, 2 CR.  Equivalent, yes, but in pitching an idea wording matters.

> That's equivalent to CR, with -1, 0, 1. Which is equivalent to
> 0, 1, 2 CR. Which of course is strategically equivalent to Approval.

I can think of a good reason for people to give less than full support
in CR:

With Approval or CR, people who believe that the front-runners have
"sold out" still have a tough decision, a decision only slightly easier
than the one they face with plurality.  (Arguably they have the same
dilemma with ranked methods, when deciding if they should truncate.)  Do
they support the "lesser weasel"?

A group of like-minded voters, perhaps acting on the advice of an
advocacy group, might give their "lesser weasel" 1 point out of 4, or
whatever.  Say that "lesser weasel" wins narrowly.  They can now say "On
election night your heart was fibrillating like Dick Cheney's.  We've
shown that we're willing to work with you, and we can make the next
election night more pleasant for you if you impliment the following
policies..."

The big difference between giving partial points and demanding
concessions versus giving no points and demanding concessions is that
the faction givin partial points (even 1 out of 4) has shown some
willingness to work with the candidate.  The candidate has the
reasonable expectation of future support if he works with them.  If they
hadn't supported him he might have written them off and concentrated on
wooing more voters in the center.

Also, these voters now have a stick as well as a carrot, as they can add
support, withdraw support, or stay where they are.  The voters giveth,
and the voters taketh away.

The Greens face this problem right now.  The Democrats' post-election
soul-searching has focused on the question "Focus on our liberal base or
fight for the center?"  If the Dems concentrate on the center they're
essentially writing off the Greens, and the Greens have no leverage.  If
we had CR, and the Greens gave the Dems at least partial support,
writing off the Greens would actually make the Dems worse off.




Alex



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