[EM] [ESF #1107] Another bullet vote argument

[robert bristow-johnson]

On May 13, 2010, at 1:41 AM, clay shentrup wrote:

> Robert Bristow-Johnson just sent me an email saying:
>
> QUOTE
> both [Score and Approval Voting] present the voter with a tactical
> dilemma right away, if the voter likes a candidate, but approves of
> more.  voters will likely Score their favorite 99 and the others as 0
> (and "not approved") and then either Score or Approval will degenerate
> to FPTP.
> /QUOTE
>
> I just linked him to http://www.electology.org/later-no-harm
>
> My question is...
>
> How. On. Earth. Do. People. Keep. Making. This. Argument?!
>
> It's like saying that if I go back in time and find a Nader supporter
> who tactically voted for Gore, and I tell him, "you're can vote for as
> many candidates as you want to" he'll say, "oh great -- instead of
> adding a vote for Nader, I'll just switch my ONE VOTE from Gore _to_
> Nader, because having the option to vote for multiple candidates makes
> me feel like throwing my vote away".
>
> Crikey.
>

On May 13, 2010, at 1:42 AM, clay shentrup wrote:

> Oh, and I'm assuming Robert has no problem with my posting that here,
> because it is just a few sentences and presumably is a fair and
> accurate reflection of his current (albeit baffling) beliefs.
>


On May 13, 2010, at 6:02 AM, Raph Frank wrote:

> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 6:41 AM, clay shentrup wrote:
>> How. On. Earth. Do. People. Keep. Making. This. Argument?!
>
> Because, approval is strange.  When a person hears about a new voting
> method, their first thought is to try to figure out how it can be
> abused.  Once they find a way, they don't actually do a full check.
>
> So, something like
>
> <hears about approval>
>
> <"hmm, this is strange and must be abusable">
>
> <"ahh, people will bullet vote">
>
> <"Cool, I knew I was right">.

well, i didn't realize i was joining a Range/Approval advocacy forum.   
i thought it was a little broader like the name of the forum  
suggests.  it needs to be renamed to "Range/Approval Voting Advocacy  
PAC".  rot's o' ruk getting your 501(c)3.

Raph, you're <assumed thinking of the other person is both ignorant  
and presumptuous>.  you either have no idea (likely since you've heard  
or read nothing from me, except one paragraph second hand), or if you  
*do* have an idea, the <misrepresentation> is less excusable.  you  
think that we are just babes in the woods and know of nothing other  
than FPTP and maybe delayed-runoffs.  the assumptions you make,  
underestimating other people (especially when you know diddley about  
them) is, well the kind words might be "risky" and "silly".

so, before i unsubscribe, i'll tell you what i think, and you can make  
fun of it after i'm gone.  i base this tactical dilemma solely on what  
*I* would be thinking upon entering the voting booth and being  
presented with a Range ballot on one hand or an Approval ballot on the  
other.

In fact, because of the State Senate district that I live in in  
Vermont (Chittenden):
   http://www.leg.state.vt.us/lms/legdir/districts.asp?Body=S
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermont_Senate_districts,_2002%E2%80%932012
we elect 6 members at large at a single un-staggered election.  we can  
vote for at most 6, the major parties offer 6 candidates each, we have  
Dems, GOP, Progs, Greens, and independents, and there are at least 20  
candidates on the ballot for State Senate in our district.  the top 6  
vote getters are elected.  so candidates of the same party are  
competing against each other as well as competing against those from  
other parties.  i have never voted for all 6 (usually just one or two)  
and very few voters (Dems) that i have talked with in Chittenden about  
it vote for all 6.  it you don't hit your maximum, it is virtually  
Approval voting.

one case is that the voter just wants to support the candidate he/she  
likes and doesn't like anyone else.  he/she votes for that candidate  
(in Range, rates that candidate 99 because he/she wants to be as  
effective as possible) and no one else (in Range all other candidates  
get 0).  then it's just like FPTP (with Range, a positive and real  
scaling factor tossed in).  big deal.

so whether it's Range or Approval, the question the other voter (who  
likes a particular candidate, but approves of others) faces is this:   
do i vote for the candidates i merely approve of (and with Range, how  
highly shall i score them)?  we know that voting for the other  
approved candidates can actually harm the candidate we like best, if  
the race comes out to be one where you favorite and the merely  
approved of candidates are competing for that last available seat (or  
the single seat, if it's a single winner).  if i have a favorite  
candidate (with others i merely approve of), perhaps this candidate is  
my mother whom i respect and love dearly, i will have an incentive to  
be fully support this candidate and not betray this candidate in any  
way.  i am faced with the strategic question of whether or not to help  
these other candidates that i approve of and are not my favorite.

so what if i guess wrong?  what if my vote for these other candidates  
does not hurt my favorite but one or more of these others barely lost  
to a candidate i didn't like.  then i will regret not voting for  
them.  or, on the other hand, what if i *do* vote for these merely  
approved of candidates (or Score them significantly higher than zero,  
but not as high as my fav) and this candidate ends up beating my  
favorite?  again, voter regret, and a voter who thinks about this in  
advance has some strategy to think about.  you cannot deny that (you  
*can* deny it, but only from ignorance), because that's how we voters  
are thinking.  we want to be loyal to our favorite and we want to help  
less favorite candidates that we approve of beat the candidates we  
hate.  so (like Homer Simpson jumping back and forth from one foot to  
another): "oh me, oh my, oh me, oh my, what to do! what to do!"  the  
voter is faced with the need to think strategically about their vote.

with the Ranked-order Ballot used for Condorcet, Borda, Bucklin, IRV,  
Coombs, etc., all the voter is asked for is "between Candidate A and  
Candidate B, who would you vote for?"  if the voter ranks Candidate A  
first, Candidate B second, Candidate C third, etc, all that voter is  
saying is that if the race was between A and B, he/she would vote for  
A.  if between B and C, this voter votes for B.  of course then if the  
race was between A and C, this voter votes for A.  that is ALL that  
the voter is saying and that is all that is asked.  the voter is not  
asked "how much MORE do you like A than B over C?"  he/she doesn't  
have to think about (or get their dart board out) and say "Gee i like  
A 56 points more than i like B and i like B 14 points more than i like  
C and i like C sqrt(3) points more than i like D."  you don't make the  
voter guess around like that, and it *is* guessing.  dunno about you,  
but i don't like being made to guess on my ballot.

then (with Range) the voter has to worry about "did i rank B too  
high?  will that hurt A's chance to be elected?"  or with Approval,  
the voter has to worry similarly if he/she approved B, "did my vote  
for B hurt A?  even though i sorta like B, how can i express that i  
really like A better than B?"

so YOU TELL ME: if i like A, approve of B somewhat, approve of C much  
less, and think that D is Satan from hell (or Hitler, Stalin,  
whoever), how should i mark my ballot if it's Range?  how should i if  
it's Approval?

it's pretty easy to mark a simple ranked-order ballot A>B>C>D and (at  
least with Condorcet and assuming no cycle) i don't have to worry  
about my vote for B hurting A, yet my vote for B *does* hurt C, but  
not where C is up against D.  my vote has equal weight with yours, it  
should matter if i like my Candidate A just a little but you like your  
Candidate B a whole lot.  my vote for A should count just as much as  
your vote for B because, despite our differing passions for our  
candidates, we have an equal franchise in the election.  that's why i  
don't want to water down my vote because i don't *have* to, even if my  
preferences are weak.

you cannot argue with that, because that's how i, as a voter, would be  
thinking at the polls with Range or Approval.  and with the Vermont  
State Senate race (which is virtually Approval), that *is* how i think  
at the polls.  you cannot tell me that i think otherwise, so my  
experience (as well as other politically savvy voters in Chittenden  
County) is that we must think strategically about voting for  
candidates that are not our favorite but we approve of.  that's the  
way it is.

i don't like being presented with that kind of agonizing decision,  
just as i don't like agonizing over whether i'll vote for the Prog or  
the Dem at the next mayoral election in Burlington because the Ranked  
Ballot was done away with when IRV was repealed.  (and i am no IRV  
advocate, but i voted against the repeal because plurality is worse in  
a 3-party context with a viable 3rd party.)  so Range/Approval is  
either virtually FPTP, if i only like one candidate, or it presents me  
with a tactical dilemma.

so you guys continue to have your Range/Approval echo chamber here at  
ESF.  i'm getting out.

bye,

--

r b-j                  rbj at audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."