[EM] bullet voting and strategy on Approval ballots.

[Warren Smith]

look, what I did not say at any point in this thread so far:
  * Robert Bristow-Johnson (RBJ) is associated with FairVote.
  * He thinks IRV is better or worse than approval.
  * The approval voting ballot is inherently better or worse than a
rank-order ballot.

What I did say:
   * evidence from comparing IRV & approval elections indicates
"bullet voting" is
NOT more prevalent with approval voting.  If anything it is more
prevalent with IRV.

RBJ incorrectly stated my evidence was not based on real elections.

That's untrue.

It is based on real IRV and real approval elections, as well as exit
poll studies (exit poll thus-simulated approval elections), but mostly
real.  Just read the page:
    http://rangevoting.org/BulletBugaboo.html

There may be good arguments IRV is better than approval, but this
bullet-voting business is not one of them.

Further, the fact IRV voters in Burlington -- or any other voters in
any IRV or approval or any election anywhere else on the planet --
supposedly cast bullet votes out of "spite" is irrelevant.  (Actually,
I can think of other reasons besides the ones RBJ listed as the "only"
ones, why they may have done so, but I simply do not care.) I do not
give a damn why they did it.  I do not know why they did it.  RBJ may
think he knows, but he may be right or may be wrong and has no way to
prove it
or even define it (what exactly is "spite"? How do you kow for sure
Jane Voter was "spiteful"?).  Even if RBJ is right, he cannot even
pretend to know why the IRV and approval voters in all the other
elections on that page, did what they did.  Maybe they too experienced
spite or rabies. I do not know.  He does not know.  All I know and
care about is *DID* they do it, and how much.  I do not know or care
why.  I am simply gathering the data and reporting the conclusions.
For whatever reasons -- spite, generosity, whatever fantasies RBJ may
have, I do not care -- voters appear to bullet vote more often with
IRV than approval.  Period.  Therefore, criticisms of approval voting
based on its propensity to attract bullet votes, are misguided (at
least, unless the same critic also claims IRV is unacceptable exactly
because of this same reason... which would be a first).

Perhaps this can be attacked, but if so, that attack ought to be based
on more evidence.  Which I would welcome, but which so far has not
come my way.

OK?  Let's not overcomplicate matters.

-----------

Now, RBJ has added one more claim: he thinks rank-order ballots make
voters provide exactly the right amount of info.  In contrast
(continues RBJ) approval-style ballots are too little info, while
score-voting style ballots are too much.
I riposte that I think score voting is the right amount of info. Why?

* A voter may be ignorant about candidate X vs Y, or just about X.
IRV forces that voter, against her will,  to provide a dishonest
opinion ("X>Y") or (if its IRV with truncation allowed) forces that
voter to rank X dishonestly last (which is what truncation does).

* But with score voting, we can easily allow a voter to leave X unscored
and thus intentionally express ignorance about X, if she so chooses.
Also, we can allow voter to score X&Y equal.  IRV does not permit either.

* A voter may have a strong opinion that Hitler and Stalin are both a
lot worse than
Gandhi and Jimmy Carter.   IRV forces that voter to pretend all her
preferences have the same strength and refuses to allow her to express
an opinion strength.

Let me put it to you this way.  If H or S win the election. you die.
If C or G win, you live.  There may also be some comparatively minor
reasons you prefer, say, S>H and C>G.   IRV refuses to allow you to
say some of your preferences are life-vs-death and others
comparatively minor.   Why is this
the "right amount" of info?

So I don't agree rank-order ballots are "exactly the right amount" of
info.  They can
force the voter to provide too much (i.e. necessarily fake) info, while refusing
to allow the voter to express important honest info.

In addition to that, there are also theoretical indications rank-order
ballots are a bad idea.  They inherently yield "impossibility
theorems" and contradictions
(e.g. "Arrow's theorem") which simply never arise in the score-voting world.
See
   http://rangevoting.org/ArrowThm.html
   http://rangevoting.org/CondorcetCycles.html

These foundational problems strongly suggest that the entire area of
rank-order ballots, was a mistake, a road that should never have been
taken.


-- 
Warren D. Smith
http://RangeVoting.org  <-- add your endorsement (by clicking
"endorse" as 1st step)
and
math.temple.edu/~wds/homepage/works.html