[EM] A misunderstanding. Enactment feasibility.

[Michael Ossipoff]

I notice thate I'm coming across as critical or argumentative or angry,
when I tell

Richard to feel free to not reply. It's not that at all.



When I said that it would be fine with me if the initial claim remained
unsupported,

I meant only that. And I genuinely wanted to assure Richard that I wasn't
harrassing him

for a justification or an answer.



So there was a misunderstanding in which I was perceived to be
argumentative.



I'm posting now because I probably sounded the same way today. I merely
meant that

I'm not calling for, insisting on, demanding, or expecting a reply.



Richard himself has suggested that the discussion is completed. It is.
That's because, now,

he _has_ posted a message explaining why he believes what he'd initially
said (about

Approval being less enactable). That explanation was all that I'd asked
for.

(I'm not saying that I agree with it). So we've both had our say on the
matter, and I agree that

there's no need for more discussion of the matter. (Well, maybe just a
little, in this posting).



Anyway, if I seemed argumentative or angry, I wasn't actually. I was just
saying that I agree that

that exchange of opinions and their justifications is completed.



But I feel that maybe a little clarification about Richard's justification
and my answer to it

is in order:



Richard made two arguments:



1. He said that Approval will be perceived as violating one-person-one-vote
(1p1v).



Answer:



I told how

it is easily shown that Approval doesn't violate 1p1v. Richard said that
people won't understand that.

At that point, we've reached the basis of the disagreement. If anyone
thinks that people won't understand

my arguments for why Approval doesn't violate 1p1v, then I invite them to
look at those arguments in my

recent postings.



2. He said that, by the time Congress is ready to do what it takes to enact
a better voting system, the

public will be so used to locally-enacted voting reform that they'll be
fully conversant with Condorcet,

Kemmeny, or whatever other (probably rank) method Richard had in mind. For
that reason, he said,

Approval's transparently obvious nature, as an improvement, and only an
improvement, on Plurality

won't be needed, because the voters wil, by then, be so qualified on the
subject of voting systems.



Answer:



But what is it that will make Congress ready to do what it takes to enact a
voting reform? Widespread,

insistent public demand, that's what. But I've told about how all sorts of
pundits, university authorities,

etc. will obvuscate the matter for the public. And remember that they won't
even have to convince people

that the proposed method will make things worse. They need only say that,
with such a complicated method,

there could be unforseen consequences. A little uncertaintly is all they
need. "This will need a lot more study."

is what we'll hear.



And, with that doubt, and with that perceived need for a lot more study,
does Richard really think that the

public will be demanding that Congress enact rank balloting for the
presidency? Or that they'll insist that

it be enacted in a U.S. state? So, my answer is that, without the public
already being sure that the proposed

method is genuinely and surely an improvement, and not a worsening, there
will never be that public demand

that we've spoken of.



Now, if Condorcet, or some other rank method were adopted and used in
states &/or municipalities, would that

reassure people so that they might insist that Congress act? Sure. Two
problems with that:



a)  The same influences that I spoke of above will just as surely prevent
that local enactment. Pundits, news commentators,

editorial-writers, magazine authors, reporters, academic authorities will
have people doubting whether the method

will only be a worsening. It will "need much more study". It won't happen.



b) But even if it could, the municipal-first route, of course is a
particularly long-time one.



Anyway, I mean no animosity or argumentativeness. Richard gave his reasons,
and I have answered them.

We've both said what we intended to say,  just as Richard himself said or
implied.



Richard and Jameson have done amazing work, in organizing the Declaration,
and in contacting Democracy

Chronicles. Additionally, Jameson has introduced us to several
large-audience Internet forum discussions about

Approval and how to fix the widespread low approval-rating of govt.



Mike Ossipoff
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20120417/4a4757f4/attachment-0003.htm>