[EM] But I propose Approval and don't propose ERIRV

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

When I said that ERIRV's advantages appeal to me more than those of 
Approval, I should clarify that I propose Approval but not ERIRV, though 
I've said it before.

I and others consider Approval & CR to be good public proposals, maybe the 
best, for the reasons that we've all discussed--simplicity, brevity of 
definition, ease of explaining, proposing and implementing. And minimal 
change from Plurality. It's easier to propose one small (but important) 
change in th existing method than to propose an entirely new method with an 
entirely new balloting. And, with all that brevity & simplicity, Approval is 
remarkably good.

And if you're going to propose a rank method, propose a really good one. 
There are Condorcet versions that are at least as brief & simple as ERIRV. 
PC & SD for instance.

Like many Condorcetists, I haven't had much experience explaining Condorcet 
to people, though I've always meant to. Usually when there's an occasion to 
suggest a better voting system, I suggest Approval, because there isn't time 
to get into explanation & definition of Condorcet. A few times I've 
described the general pairwise-count method to people, without usuallly 
getting into circular ties and their solution. But PC & SD would be brief to 
define. SD's rare nonmonotonicity isn't a practical problem, and IRVists 
can't say anything about it.

One one occasion I explained SSD to someone who had no previous experience 
with voting systems. That was someone who was interested in what I was 
interested in, and was therefore interested in listening to the explanation 
when I asked for her opinion about SSD.

Most likely, if I stopped people on a streetcorner, none of them would 
listen to the definition of SSD. That doesn't mean that SSD can't be a 
public proposal though--they could read the details later if they were 
intersted.

But the interesting thing is that she really liked SSD, more than simpler 
Condorcet versions that I mentioned. The Schwartz set has obvious appeal, 
and SSD doesn't mention cycles, unlike the other Condorcet versions other 
than PC. Though RP can be worded without saying "cycle", that meaning has to 
be said in some way, and that just leaves a question about what the 
substituted term means.

As I was saying before, I demonstated the Schwartz set by making dots on a 
paper, representing candidates. I drew an ellipse and said "These candidates 
are unbeaten by the others". I drew a smaller ellipse in the ellipse and 
said that these also were unbeaten by anyone outside that smaller ellipse, 
and that there were no more smaller ellipses in it. Obviously the candidates 
in the inner ellipse are more qualified to win.

She wasn't just being nice; that wouldn't explain why she was certain that 
she liked SSD better than SD. I hadn't indicated preference for one over the 
other.

Sure, that's just one person, but it suggests that SSD is likeable.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/