[EM] Keep It Simple

[Dave Ketchum]

Ralph Suter argues that we need real life examples of how voters actually 
vote with proposed methods, rather than basing claims on predictions of 
behavior.

I agree the predictions get overdone; and we are greatly lacking as to 
actual votes; so I will try what I see as reasonable predictions.

Plurality - most voters want this most of the time for most races.  They 
have neither time nor inclination to go farther on most of the contests 
they are faced with on election day.

Approval - fills in a gap to approve multiple best candidates, or to thus 
exclude one or more rejects.

Borda - mentioned recently, but seems like a reject to me.

Range - theory sounds nice, but how can voters express their desires and 
have their THOUGHTS properly credited?

Condorcet - this ranked choice method, properly defined, lets voters do 
well at expressing their opinions as in Plurality or Approval, or Ranking 
(optionally with Approval):
      Ranking of multiple candidates as better or worse is included, 
though without the complications of Range or Borda.  This gets to be a BIG 
DEAL when there are more than two candidates with serious backing.
      Note that an array of vote counts can be published for convenient 
analysis as to how the candidates fared - not just who won.
      Current "DH3" complaint.  Agreed schemers can create disasters BUT 
takes multiple competing candidates, schemers' knowledge of predictable 
normal votes, and schemers' plots to change winner via false votes failing.

IRV - same ballot as Condorcet but:
      Approval cannot be included without an agreement as to how to count.
      By, too often, ignoring parts of ballots, can pick wrong winners.
      BUT - in actual use so there is available data.

DWK

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [EM] DH3 pathology, margins, and winning votes
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 10:38:16 EDT
RLSuter at aol.com wrote:
> To make a dire warning about how "DH3 pathology" could
> cause "massive destruction" if any of the voting methods
> that are theoretically susceptible to it are used is little more
> than a rhetorical ploy (whether or not consciously intended
> as one) to back up the author's passionately held view that
> range voting is the single best of all single winner voting
> methods. What is most lacking in this and other discussions
> on this list about strategic voting is empirical data about
> how people vote in actual public elections in which different
> voting methods are used. Until there is much more such
> evidence than is now available, conjectures about how
> people might vote given different methods and different
> combinations of candidates don't jusfity anything like
> this kind of hyperbolic rhetoric. If the point is to make
> arguments that are logically compelling, such rhetoric
> is not merely unhelpful but extremely counterproductive.
> 
> -Ralph Suter
-- 
  davek at clarityconnect.com    people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
  Dave Ketchum   108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY  13827-1708   607-687-5026
            Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
                  If you want peace, work for justice.