[EM] 64 vs 65, post for purpose of annoying Jobst Heitzig

[Chris Benham]

Warren,

>Incidentlally, since you claim because you cannot explain the precise meaning of a range vote
>of 64 versus 65, therefore range voting is somehow horribel and inexplicable...
>and you like DMC...  I ask "explain to me the precise meaning of
>`I approve of Bush.'"
>
>Pretty difficult, isn't it?   And also probably strategy dependent - it depends who
>are Bush's opponents, in practice.   All of this is quite analogous to range vote
>values.   (Annoyance mission completed.)
>wds
>
I dislike plain Approval because it more-or-less forces voters to 
concern themselves with strategy and the winning probabilities of
the candidates. Using a concept of  absolute inflexible "approval" in a 
method like DOC  I used to object to on the same grounds.
But now I see that it is mathematically convenient  and seems to  
resonate in the real world.

My attempt to "precisely" define  "I approve of  Bush":
" If  the ballot constrains me to equally help a set of candidates 
(which I nominate) to defeat any non-member candidates, I  put Bush
in that set. I prefer Bush to any candidate that I don't approve."



Chris  Benham