[EM] A few posting comments

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Sometimes I comment on mis-statements or misunderstandings in postings, and 
I´ll do so now.

Russ said:

I've already brought up the issue of inaccurate polling data, and I
think the effect of such uncertainty needs to be addressed before the
effectiveness of Approval can really be evaluated.

I comment:

>From the very start, since Approval was  proposed by Weber, Approval 
strategy under uncertainty has been thoroughly discussed. I mention that, 
lest anyone be concerned that that has never been discussed and that 
therefore Approval has never really been evaluated.

Russ continued:

Someone somewhere has
probably addressed this issue, but I am personally unaware of it.

I reply:

Yes, someone has. Lots of people have. Articles that Russ copied to his 
website did.

As Forrest pointed out, lying by those who count and report polls is more of 
a problem than lying by those who are polled. Any worthwhile study of 
poll-lying would have to take the former into account.

But, as Forrest also pointed out, with polls being so unreliable, our 
elections are 0-info elections, till Approval or Condorcet election results 
(using verifiable balloting) are available as an information source for 
voters.

In the 1st Approval election, then, vote for all the candidates whose merit 
is above the mean. And, meanwhile, with Plurality, just use the 0-info 
Plurality strategy of voting for your favorite. Some people believe that 
they´re voting strategically in our Plurality elections, but they´re doing 
so based on thoroughly unreliable information, and it would be better to use 
the 0-info strategy of voting for one´s favorite.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/