[EM] advocacy: Approval is premature compromise

[Richard Fobes]

Of course Approval voting will never be used for electing U.S. 
Congressmen or state governors.  Yet at the opposite end of the "size" 
spectrum, Approval voting is clearly useful in small groups.  At what 
point in the continuum between high-stakes elections and small-group 
decisions does Approval voting become inappropriate?  We don't know, and 
we wouldn't agree, so let's let others make that choice.

The "elephant in the room" is that advocates of Range voting need to 
also endorse Approval voting both because one criticism of Range voting 
is that it can (might?) produce Approval-like results if every voter 
votes strategically, and because Score ballots have greater appeal if we 
also promote Approval ballots.

I think our role is to educate citizens about alternatives to 
single-mark ballots, and then let those newly educated citizens choose 
which method best fits each specific situation.

Although I wouldn't want a U.S. President chosen by Approval voting, I 
would be happy to use Approval voting in a _primary_ election for U.S. 
President.

I agree we should aim high.  I think we are already doing that by aiming 
for a large number of signatures.

Richard Fobes


On 10/3/2011 1:54 PM, Brian Olson wrote:
> I know that Approval is technically better than a lot of things, and I think it's better than IRV, but I want to argue that it's not good enough and we shouldn't aim low or advocate it too strongly.
>
> I've always been personally unsatisfied with the prospect of filling out an Approval ballot. Sure I can say that either Al Gore or Ralph Nader would be fine choices for President, but I don't get to say which one I like better. I think this psychological aspect is important. In my mind it might drive me to misjudge my proper approval threshold, and I think I'd be likely to approve too few candidates and tend toward pick-one.
>
> I also today see Approval as fitting the pattern of premature compromise in politics. Afraid that we might not be able to get the awesome thing, we start off only trying for the mediocre thing. We could have real universal healthcare or Obama-Romney-care. We could try for a budget that makes sense, or we could have a budget half full of cruft and with tax tweaks that make no sense because someone whined for it.
>
> If we're going to do this, we should do it right. Go all the way. Go for the best thing possible. Isn't that one thing that frustrates us so much with the IRV advocates? They recognize that election method reform is important, but then they go all-in on a mediocre reform.
>
> Anyway, that's my random afternoon strategy opinion, I could be wrong.
>
> Brian Olson
> http://bolson.org/