[EM] Approval and Condorcet

[Michael Ossipoff]

> Subject: [EM] Approval and Condorcet
> 
> There's been a lot of back-and-forth over which is better. As an Approval
> supporter myself, but one who doesn't agree with a lot of the pro-approval
> arguments that have been made, I'd like to state my own position - once. I
> won't respond in this thread because I hope the whole debate dies out
soon.

Yes, no one is trying to prevent the Condorcetists from proposing Condorcet
for enactment somewhere. They admit, however, that it would have to be just
municipal, at least at first. I don't believe in wasting any time trying to
convince them not to.

1. Public (other than EM) criticism of Approval by Condorcetists, or of
Condorcet by Approvalists would be counterproductive. Remember the 3 Stooges
trying to get through a door.

2. Arguing about which is better is a waste of time that could be better
used by actually introducing the public to the method that you recommend.
> 
 
> Given that reasonable people can take either side of this debate, what's
the
> point of arguing?

Approval vs Condorcet is a waste of time. I've been discussing Approval's
strategies, properties, advantages, and predicted results. Discussing such
matters is worthwhile. Likewise, Condorcetists can discuss its advantages,
properties and (largely unknown) strategies. Hopefully they can disagree
without becoming angry.

I have no use for long debates about which method is better. That's what
regrettably characterizes EM. It's why I said that EM is nothing but a
debate-club.

One difference between me and our Condorcetists is that I'm only interested
in societal results, not the debate-club game.

> 
> It's only productive insofar as it helps us unite our activism. 

Of course it doesn't. As I said, it's a waste of time that detracts from
efforts toward practical results.

Bruce's attempted argument doesn't surprise me at all. Such attempts are
inevitable. The tobacco, meat, and dairy industries have no trouble finding
academics and other authorities whom they can pay to say things that favor
those industries. On any subject with important consequences, where there is
a lot of money involved, paying for favorable support will be a good
strategy, and it will be used, and there will always be academics and other
authorities willing to do as they're hired. 

In the case of someone trying to say that Plurality is better than Approval,
the arguments will necessarily be ridiculous and desperate. But without
Plurality, a big and valuable (to its beneficiaries) scam would fall apart.
So those arguments have to be attempted nevertheless, and we can expect to
hear more of them. Bruce is just starting a little early. But I've run
across some journal articles making similar claims, none of which would
stand up in a public discussion in which both sides are heard from.

But look it this way: Bruce's attempt shows that this matter is important.
Desperate attempts to argue for Plurality against Approval show you that
someone is worried about what Approvals' greater freedom would so, and that
someone is acknowledging the importance, for them, of Plurality's forced
falsification. Someone doesn't like freedom. But we already knew that. We're
been told that the terrorists hate freedom. Well, it would seem that some
Plurality-defenders do too, judging by the desperate lengths to which they
go in order to oppose voter freedom.

> Bonus factious argument: Is there an amoeba's worth of distance between
> Democrats and Republicans?

> But it's just crazy to say that they're the same

By the way, how is Kerry's former running mate doing in his corruption
trial?

The Democrats have to throw the public a crumb once and  while, in order to
be able to claim differentness. 

But, for the most part, the difference is only rhetorical. A writer in _The
Progressive_ pointed out that the Democrats are progressive in their
campaigns, and then become Republican when in office. He explained that by
pointing out that the Democrats get their votes from one segment of the
population, but get their money and instructions from another (much smaller)
segment of the population--the same one from which the Republicans get their
money and instructions.

It's the familiar old "Good Cop/Bad Cop" routine. 

Are the Democrats and Republicans always exactly the same? No, because the
Democrats need to throw the occasional crumb. No, because the Democrats need
to sound like progressives in their campaigns and their speeches. No,
because they have opposite rolls to act, in the Good Cop/Bad Cop scam.

But the those "differences" are rhetorical and theatrical only. There are no
significant merit differences or moral-level differences.

Look up Jim Hightower's account of Al Gore in East Liverpool, Ohio, if you
want a good example.  Not that there aren't innumerable good examples around
you on a daily basis.


>; in
> fact, objective measures of voting records show that the gap is wider now
than
> any time in the last 100 years.

I'd ask what evidence there is for that "wide" difference, but I won't press
you on the matter, because, on such matters either you faithfully believe
your tv or you don't, and discussion doesn't have any effect. Never
contradict a man's tv.

I suggest that, when, due to the support and preferences finally revealed by
the more free expression in Approval, the public will hear about other
platforms, policies and proposals, and will finally have something to
compare the Republocrats to, a larger context that will show that the
Republocrats are indeed virtually the same, aside from their rhetorical and
theatrical differences in their roles.

> You just can't debate that, there's many ways to
> prove it. 

It's one thing to say that you can prove it. It's another thing to prove it.


>US democracy is indeed very sick, but hyperbole discredits only the
> person who can't abandon it.

It isn't hyperbole. The "two choices" differ only rhetorically and
theatrically. A crumb now and then. Good-cop vs bad-cop roles. 

If you want to claim that the Republicans and Democrats are significantly
different from eachother, then you need to tell in what significant way you
think that they're different, in terms of merit, honesty, moral level, etc.

Otherwise you're just "handwaving".

Mike Ossipoff