Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
abd at lomaxdesign.com
Mon Dec 10 21:07:39 PST 2007
At 01:16 PM 12/9/2007, Jonathan Lundell wrote:
>Approval fixes Florida 2000 nicely, though, only because Nader had no
>serious chance of election, so a Nader voter wouldn't have hurt
>Nader's chances (zero) by approving Gore as well.
Right. In a two-party system, any possible difficulty for the voter is rare.
>In a different election profile, though, an approval voter faced with
>a "good-bad-worse" choice where all three candidates are viable is
>forced to strategize. Having approved "good", my approval of "bad"
>could be decisive in bad beating good--which leads me to prefer
>later- no-harm methods: I want to be able to both express my preference for
>"good" over "bad", and at the same time "bad" over "worse". I can't do
>that with approval.
Three viable candidates is rare. If so, the safest vote would depend
on preference strengths. If the "bad" is actually midrange in
preference, the safest vote could be to approve the top two. But the
more powerful vote is exclusive for the top one. It can be a tossup.
Look, suppose it was Plurality. How would you vote in a three-way?
I'd say that the choice is not easy, but easier with Approval than
with Plurality. Since I'm not proposing replacing Condorcet methods
with Approval, it's really a non-issue for me. Approval is better
than Plurality, yet it takes the same ballot and the same counting
and the same equipment. It's a no-brainer.
Just Count All the Votes!
Then we can debate refinements!
More information about the Election-Methods