[EM] Conversations with Jo-Ann Q. Public

[Michael Ossipoff]

I've had yet another completely unfavorable reaction to Approval from a 
member of the public. Members of the public seem to universally oppose 
Approval.

And, in every instance, there's no such thing as explaining to them why 
Approval isn’t as bad as they think it is.

For instance, in this most recent conversation, as in the previous ones, I 
pointed out that, in Approval, contrary to popular belief, everyone casts 
equally many votes. If you mark a candidate, that’s a “Yes” vote. If you 
don’t mark a candidate, that’s a “No” vote. To put it numerically, for 
purposes of count, marking a candidate is a positive point assignment, and 
not marking a candidate is a negative point assignment. In spite of how it 
looks on the ballot, therefore, the voting is really symmetrical, with 
everyone giving every candidate a positive or negative point.

So, if there are 10 candidates, and I mark 6, and you mark 1, I’m not having 
more voting power than you are! We’re both voting on all the candidates.

It went in one ear and out the other. Every time, with every member of the 
public.

This time I pointed out to Jo-Ann (not her real name) that, even if you 
define a “voting power” that can differ among voters, defining it as your 
opportunity to improve your expectation by your vote,, and fairness calls 
for that opportunity to be the same for everyone, then it can be 
mathematically shown that 1-vote Plurality can be considerably more unfair, 
with considerably more unequal voting power, than Approval can.

When that didn’t help, I wrote out the demonstration, and took her through 
it. Her answer? “People don’t like complication.” So much for showing which 
method is more unfair.

I told her what Approval’s big advantage is: We always hear that if you vote 
for Nader you’re hurting Kerry (or Hillary?). It’s the big reason why so 
many voters resent Nader from running. Apparently it’s unethical and selfish 
for an honest person to enter the race, if it will take votes away from a 
crooked sleaze. That problem is eliminated by Approval, because you can vote 
for Kerry, and still show support for Nader. That just elicited a repetition 
of her initial objections, as if all that I’d said hadn’t  been said.

I then asked if RV seems as bad as Approval. At first she said no, but later 
she said that it has the same problem when used for choosing an 
officeholder, as opposed to just showing popularity.

I then asked her if rank-balloting has that problem--letting people indicate 
their first choice, and their 2nd choice, etc. She said maybe not, but 
there’s no point in it, and that it wouldn’t have helped in Florida, 2000.

I said that, in Florida 2000, if the Nader voters had ranked Nader first, 
and Kerry in 2nd place, they’d still be voting Kerry over Bush, and helping 
Kerry against Bush  She replied that it doen’t make sense. “This is 
America.!We have a right to elections that  have a vote for only one 
person!” Apparently I was perceived as trying to take away her American 
rights. (Not an exact quote, except for the “This is America” part, but 
probably close). So let’s not have any of those un-American efforts to take 
away the good old American one-and-only vote for the best candidate? As I 
said, that’s what I’ve universally found when asking members of the public 
about Approval or other improved voting systems.

RV wasn’t rejected as strongly as Approval. And rank-balloting maybe even 
less strongly--mostly it’s perceived as pointless and unnecessary. Since the 
best rank methods can offer more than Approval or RV, maybe rank methods are 
the best way to go.

Approval  accepted by the public? Kiss it off.

Mike Ossipoff