[EM] Voting reform statement

[Jameson Quinn]

2011/8/15 Jonathan Lundell <jlundell at pobox.com>

> On Aug 15, 2011, at 7:09 AM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
>
> So, what do you think? Let the debate begin. I expect the above to be torn
> to shreds. But once it's starting to seem stable, I'll make a google doc out
> of it, so we can collaboratively polish up the language.
>
>
> Where you will lose many of us, I think, is in a flat endorsement of
> approval. The fundamental problem with approval voting is that, with more
> than two candidates, voting demands that the voter engage in strategic
> voting. That is, if my preference is A>B>C, then my decision whether to
> approve B cannot be made without strategizing. That flies in the face of
> your fine suggestion that strategy avoidance be an important criterion.
>
> (It's not an answer to say that approval strategy is "easy" or "obvious";
> that's not the point, nor is it generally true, since it depends on having
> information not generally available about other voters' preferences and
> strategies.)
>

Well, I specifically didn't make such a claim, because, although I believe
it, I knew it would lose people.

I would claim that approval strategy is at least as easy/obvious as
plurality strategy; and that approval reacts at least as well to a lack of
strategy as plurality.

>
> The problems of IRV are minor compared to approval (and any other
> rating-based system).
>

You can believe that and still sign this statement, as long as you believe
that approval is a worthwhile step up from plurality. Note that the
statement nowhere claims that approval is better than IRV, just that it is
likely to be able to get a broader consensus from theorists.

Still... although you haven't actually said anything that contradicts what I
wrote, you did say that I will lose you for endorsing approval, which makes
me suspect that you also feel that approval is not a worthwhile step up from
plurality. I'd love to convince you otherwise, but the most important thing
is to get a worthwhile consensus statement. To me, any statement that can't
flatly endorse even one system is meaningless, and I'd guess approval is
probably the system which can get the broadest support, and also one of the
few which has a real chance of being implemented for real-world political
elections. Am I wrong? Would you, for instance, endorse SODA?

Personally, I see voting reform as a step-by-step process. Yes, approval has
unsatisfying aspects. But implementing approval is a clear step up from
plurality; a clear step towards any system you might advocate; and a step
that would give us useful empirical data to help decide which direction to
go from there. I think that most voters would be wary of taking a larger
leap, even to my one of my favored systems, which I think are among the
simpler of the better options. And since the simpler, safer option of
approval does exist, I can't even blame voters for that.

So, the bottom line is: Jonathan, what do you suggest? Do you think that
this statement would still be useful if we simply removed approval and thus
made no clear policy suggestion? Do you think that there's some other system
which could get broader support from this community than approval would? Or
do you thing that a useful, broadly-supported statement is simply
impossible? (Or do you see some other option which I don't?)

JQ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20110815/a2a4c27a/attachment-0004.htm>