[EM] Is strategic voting a bad thing, really?

[wclark at xoom.org]

Rob LeGrand wrote:

> Please see Lorrie Cranor's work on Declared-Strategy Voting at

> http://lorrie.cranor.org/dsv.html

> Much of her dissertation is closely related to your line of thought.

Indeed it is.  Much thanks for the pointer!

> Unfortunately, plurality still suffers from the Duverger effect even when
> used with DSV.

My immediate intuition was that while something like DSV+Plurality would
still result in two parties being dominant, *which* two parties those were
might be more subject to fluctuation, than with standard plurality.

Part of the problem with the two-party system (as I see it) is that social
inertia may keep one party in power long after it "should" have been
replaced by some popular third-party.  I think there's some argument to be
made that the USA should currently have a two-party duopoly consisting of
Greens/Republicans or Democrats/Libertarians (or even
Greens/Libertarians.)

Obviously I haven't had any time to give Lorrie Cranor's work anything
more than a cursory glance, so I'm not sure whether my intuition in that
regard matches with her results.

> I'm currently working on DSV with approval voting and
> trying to show that it is much superior in many ways.

I'd be interested in reading more about that, when your work reaches a
point you're happy with.  I trust you'll share with the list when you're
ready? :)

-Bill

-- 
Ralph Nader for US President in 2004
http://votenader.org/