[EM] On the matter of what voting system to propose

[Michael Ossipoff]

One problem with elaborate methods is: How do we choose among them?
Everyone advocates a different one, by standards that are different for
each advocate.

That's a serious disadvantage of rank methods as proposals. Also, the
strategy-free sincere A>B>C>D>E voting ideal is a lot less attainable than
Condorcetists would like to think. And don't think that opponents won't
bring the problems up.

An advantage of Approval is that it's the one method for which it can be
said that it is undoubtedly an improvement, and only an improvement, over
Plurality.

The only change involved, in changing Plurality to Approval consists only
in repealing one rule in Plurality, the forced falsification rule that I've
spoken of before. By that, I refer to the rule that requires you to
(usually insincerely) rate all but one candidate at 0.

As I've been saying, Plurality is a points rating system, a 0 to 1 points
rating system. It's a most peculiar points rating system, in that it
requires you to give 0 points to all candidates but one. A proposal to get
rid of that one thoroughly-unjustifiable requirement is a proposal that
asks for the  _least_. That's why I say that Approval is the minimal
proposal.

We could argue (and probably would) for the rest of the century about which
rank method is the best. But we agree on what is the simplest, the minimal
voting system reform proposal that gets rid of Plurality's problem:
Approval.

We all agree that Plurality isn't any good, and needs replacing.  We agree
on the simplest, minimal fix. No one can credibly criticize getting rid of
Plurality's forced falsification rule.
Approval, in addition to being the simplest, is the uncriticizable voting
system reform.

Approval is a simple but _big_ freedom-enhancement for Plurality. It's your
ballot. Why shouldn't you be the one to choose which candidates you rate
with a 1, and which you rate with a 0? It's a freedom issue. A
voting-freedom issue. A voting rights issue. As such, it's a good prospect
as a voting rights court case.


To Range (Score) advocates:

You could argue that, while Approval is a freedom-enhancement, Score is an
additional freedom-enhancement, one that lets you give a finer gradation of
ratings.

1. So, when you propose Score, you're asking for two enhancements instead
of one. Asking for twice as many things is more than twice as
un-succeedable.

2. Approval's freedom-enhancement is compellingly needed, because
Plurality's forced falsification is compellingly, obviously, blatantly
undemocratically wrong.

3. Score strategically amounts to Approval anyway.

The same can be said to advocates of Majority-Judgement.

What we can actually get, Approval, is very much good enough.

After Approval is enacted, you can, at your leisure, propose methods that
you'd prefer. As I've said, Approval's count results, when they show how
many points of view are viable, will open up the voting systems discussion
like never before. The better govt with Approval will improve the
conditions that affect new-method proposals. Right now, however, it's a
matter of "Will we have Plurality, or will we have something better?"

You can't always get what you want. But if you try sometime, you must might
find, you get what you need.

Mike Ossipoff
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20120625/bf3ec10b/attachment-0002.htm>