[EM] Re: Long Term CR Strategy

[Alex Small]

Mike-

A bad candidate doesn't necessarily have to be a bribe-taking lying thief.
 I completely agree that a liar who takes bribes doesn't even deserve
partial votes.

But suppose (for hypothetical purposes) that there's a candidate who
merely disagrees with you on some issues, but doesn't lie or take bribes. 
Now, suppose (for the sake of argument) that on the issues your stance
diverges considerably from most of the other voters.  (My stances
certainly do, being that I'm a Libertarian who prefers Democrats to
Republicans.)  Given the layout of the electorate there's no way you'll
get the candidates to fully come over to your side.  However, you might be
able to get a candidate to at least come toward your side on some issues.

What to do?  If you give full votes to a candidate who comes part-way then
you relinquish any further hold over the candidate.  On the other hand, if
you decide that close just ain't close enough, you risk being disregarded.
 Partial points are a way to be valued without losing any further clout.

This is not to say that you shouldn't set a respectable threshold for
partial points.  There should still be a realm called "Not even good
enough for partial points."  My point isn't to suggest lowering your
standards.  Rather, it's to suggest that even if they start to meet your
standards you still shouldn't give full points.  As soon as you do that
you lose any further clout.

So, this isn't about giving partial points to reward bad behavior.  It's
about withhold full points from good behavior so they have to keep working
harder for you, but still giving them something so they know you are
willing to play ball.

MIKE OSSIPOFF said:
>
> If you give a party 0 points, then you're sending them the strongest
> possible message that they aren't good enough.
>
> But your point is that that party might be completely incapable or
> unwilling  to become good enough to rate a maximum vote instead of a
> minimum vote, in  Approval strategy.
>
> If they know, then, that they're not willing to become honest and get
> anything other than 0 from you, then you can't influence them, as you
> could  if you gave them a little to try to at least move them up a
> little. They  slightly moderate one monstrously evil policy, among many,
> so give them  another point.
>
> It doesn't feel right. If they're liars, bribetakers and sleazes, then
> they  deserve 0.
> It isn't worth playing for a crumb.
>
> The assumption is that you and they know that they'll never rate maximum
>  points from progressives, because there's no way that they'll improve
> that  much. So you're not, by your points increments, going to lead them
> to honest  and noncriminality, like leading a mouse with a trail of
> cheese. So why do  it? Why compromise your principles for the minimal
> gains, for the minimal  distance that you can move that corrupt & sleazy
> party?
>
> Mike Ossipoff
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Learn how to choose, serve, and enjoy wine at Wine @ MSN.
> http://wine.msn.com/
>
> ----
> Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list
> info