[Election-Methods] rcv ala tournament

CLAY SHENTRUP clay at electopia.org
Sat Dec 29 20:48:34 PST 2007

On Dec 29, 2007 7:52 PM, Dave Ketchum <davek at clarityconnect.com> wrote:
> Your enthusiasm for Approval continues to puzzle.  How could many voters
> find its inability to give backing to more than one, while flagging one as
> best, acceptable?

social utility efficiency calculations show that approval generally
produces more "acceptable" outcomes than condorcet, borda, irv, etc.

you're making a classic fallacy of focusing on the voting process -
the ballot itself - instead of the election outcome.  we don't hold
elections for the enjoyment of filling out ballots.  we hold them for
the enjoyment of getting a society we like.

> As to Range, I simply note my preference for Condorcet.

well, the evidence says your preferences will be better satisfied by
range than condorcet.  so it appears you're wrong.

unless maybe you meant that you literally prefer using condorcet
voting over range voting SO MUCH that you'd be willing to get a less
preferable election result just to have more fun during the 5-10
minutes it takes you to vote.  do you really like something about that
ranked ballot, or those condorcet tabulation rules _so much more_ that
it trumps your concern for the effect of government policy on the
environment, human lives, etc.?  that's pretty callous if you ask me.
and pretty bizarre that the state of the world is less important to
you than the experience you have during the 5-10 minutes you vote.

> > that is a bad recommendation, since it implies condorcet voting (the
> > only method where every voter has the same strength), which is nowhere
> > near as utilitarian as range voting.
> Debatable.

oh yeah?  where's your evidence that it's debatable?

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list