[EM] Corrected statement from the CAV/AAV Board

[Rob LeGrand]

Due to a miscommunication, the CAV/AAV Board had not fully signed
off on the statement that I posted yesterday.  Here's the corrected
statement approved by the whole CAV/AAV Board.  I apologize for the
confusion.


A Summary of the Actions of the CAV Board Meeting of August 12, 2005

The Board of Citizens for Approval Voting (CAV) has decided against
a major reorganization of CAV and Americans for Approval Voting
(AAV).  But it has broadened the mission statement to allow other
groups to work with CAV/AAV for the adoption of better voting
systems and also to address other forms of elections, such as
multiwinner elections and general ballot questions, including
citizen initiatives and bond-package voting in referenda.

Although still subject to change, the approved plan is that CAV
will remain a non-profit organization that works to promote
Approval Voting to an international audience, and to spur
scientific study of all voting systems so that best practices can
be identified.

AAV remains a political-action organization that works for the
adoption of legislation in the United States to enact Approval
Voting.  In the instance that Approval Voting is not among the
systems being considered for a specific use, AAV will also support
the adoption of any other voting system that the Board and members
agree is clearly superior to some existing voting system.  Of
course, implementation details can have drastic impacts on any
voting system, and therefore AAV will evaluate all legislation
related to the adoption of new voting systems on a case-by-case
basis.

Both CAV and AAV look forward to cooperating with other election-
reform groups.  We hope to foster a spirit of cooperation and open-
mindedness.  We do not feel that the CAV name precludes or hinders
such cooperation.  In fact, we applaud recent proposals to create a
new Center for Range Voting (CRV), as suggested by Warren Smith and
supported by Jan Kok and others, though we have reservations about
Range Voting that are expressed in the Appendix to this statement.

We look forward to working closely with CRV and other voting-reform
organizations.  We would also be interested in the possibility of
joining an umbrella organization dedicated to voting-system reform.
In addition, we remain open to cooperating with the Center for
Voting and Democracy for mutual benefit.

At this stage, we believe that Approval Voting's advantages are
strong enough to redouble our efforts for its adoption in public
elections.  The Board discussed several implementation strategies
and believe that it would be useful to target party caucuses and
primaries, as has been proposed by Warren Smith (e.g., Iowa '08).
We also agree that more public-poll experiments, which compare
outcomes under different voting systems, are worthy of support.

Finally, the Board has approved a plan to complete the
incorporation of the CAV and AAV organizations and to add members
to the Boards of the respective bodies as soon as possible.  Some
possible nominees have been discussed, but we also call on our
members and supporters to put forward additional names.

APPENDIX: RESERVATIONS ABOUT RANGE VOTING

Although Range Voting provides a generalization of Approval Voting,
it is not obvious how many levels of approval voters should be
allowed to indicate: 100, 10, or some other number?  Even 10 levels
is asking a lot of voters, who--psychological experiments show--
generally cannot make such fine discriminations.  In politics, the
situation is aggravated when there are, say, ten candidates in a
party primary, and  the average voter has little information about
most of them.  To use a measure of regret, based on 10 levels, to
argue that Range beats Approval is to engage in an exercise of
dubious validity and false precision.  We do not say that 2 levels
is always perfect--3 may be better in some instances--but we think
it is a good starting point for most citizens, including the 50%
who cannot name the Vice President.

At a theoretical level, it is well known in game theory and social-
choice theory that a larger menu of choices do not necessarily lead
to better decisions, even when there is complete information.
Indeed, additional choices often render a system more vulnerable to
manipulation, especially by sophisticated players.  Recent research
has shown that Appproval Voting gives "strong Nash equilibria,"
making certain outcomes invulnerable even to coalitions of players,
which other voting systems do not induce.*  In short, we question
the advantages of Range Voting on both practical and theoretical
grounds while admitting that, as a relatively new system, it
deserves more research.

*Steven J. Brams and M. Remzi Sanver, "Critical Strategies under
Approval Voting: Who Gets Ruled in and Ruled out," ELECTORAL
STUDIES (2005, forthcoming).

END OF STATEMENT

--
Rob LeGrand, psephologist
secretary at approvalvoting.org
Citizens for Approval Voting
http://www.approvalvoting.org/


		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs