[EM] Dave: Approval-objection answers

[Dave Ketchum]

On Mar 23, 2012, at 7:28 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
> 2012/3/23 MIKE OSSIPOFF <nkklrp at hotmail.com>
> Dave:
>
> You wrote:
>
> On Mar 22, 2012, at 4:09 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
> > On 03/22/2012 07:57 PM, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
> >> There are plenty of voters who report having to "hold their nose"  
> and
>
>
> >> vote only for someone they don't like. They'd all like to be able  
> to
> >> vote for better candidates to, including their favorites. Even if  
> one
> >> only counts the Democrat voters who say that they're strategically
>
>
> >> forced
> >> to vote only for someone they don't really like, amounts to a lot  
> of
> >> people who'd see the improvement brought by Approval.
>
> If there is no one acceptable to vote for, the voters have not done
>
>
> their job:
> .     Could happen occasionally such as failures in doing
> nominations.  Write-ins can help recover for this.
>
> [endquote]
>
> There could be elections in which there's no one acceptable to vote  
> for, but, as you
>
>
> said, even then, there should be write-ins.
>
> But, even with the difficulty of getting non-big-2 parties on the  
> ballot, and especially
> after the way Approval will open things up, there will usually be  
> someone reasonably
>
>
> acceptable on the ballot. Even now, ballots often have a wide  
> variety of candidates
> and parties.
My point is that it is voter responsibility to see to it that there  
are acceptable candidates on the ballot:
.     The laws should provide for practical quality nominations - if  
not, the voters should see to fixing.
.     Voters should see to good nominations - another voter  
responsibility.
.     Even with quality above there can be failures -  occasional  
failures can be expected - we just need to worry when they are too  
common.
>
> You continued:
>
> "strategically forced" should not be doable for how a particular voter
> voted
>
>
>
> [endquote]
>
> It's doable because many voters are so resigned and cowed that it  
> doesn't
> take much to force them to do giveaway compromise strategy, without  
> any
> reliable information to justify that strategy. I refer to the  
> progressive people
>
>
> who think they strategically need to vote for the Democrat.
>
> You continued:
>
> (but no one voted for the supposedly forced choice
>
> [endquote]
>
> Regrettably, millions vote for that "choice", because it's billed as  
> one of "the two choices".
>
>
>
> You continued:
>
> -  why force
> such a hated choice?
>
> [endquote]
>
> To keep voters from voting for someone whom they genuinely prefer.  
> What the public,
> including the voters, would like isn't the same as what is most  
> profitable to those who
>
>
> own the media that tell us about "the two choices". Everyone  
> believes that only they
> have the preferences that they have, because that's how it looks in  
> the media.
>
> Notice that all politicians routinely promise change. That's because  
> they know
>
>
> that the public wants change. So the politicians are adamant about  
> change. They're
> mad as hell and they want to do something about it, and give us  
> change. Amazingly, that
> pretense continues to reliably work, every time.
My point was that, except for absentee ballots, secrecy should be  
known to be perfect and thus the enforcers have no power:
.     If there are no votes as demanded, that proves no one obeyed -  
but this should be very unlikely for normal expected voting.
.     There can be ways to violate secrecy on absentee processing,  
though doing this should be avoided.
>
> You continued:
>
> OMOV may inspire some - many of us have to argue against it having
> value because we back, as better, methods this thought argues about -
> such as Condorcet, Score, and even IRV.
>
>
>
> [endquote]
>
> OMOV is easily answered by pointing out that Approval let's everyone  
> rate each
> candidate as approved or unapproved.

But the complaint is that that letting makes Approval an invalid  
system.  Response to that is that letting each voter rate or rank more  
than one leaves them equal power.
.     I was noting that many of the better methods permit violating  
OMOV.
>
> You continued:
>
> Part of the chicken dilemma difficulty is that it depends on what some
>
>
> voters will do without any compulsion, and what others will do after
> making promises to cooperate
>
> [endquote]
>
> The chicken dilemma is very difficult to get rid of. I don't know of  
> anyone
> proposing a FBC-complying method that really gets rid of that problem.
On the other hand, it is very difficult to cause trouble with.   The  
plotter:
.     Needs to know expectable normal vote counts for this collection  
of voters and this topic.
.     Know the change wanted and get it voted.
.     Somehow avoid others, perhaps due to hearing of these proposed  
changes, of making conflicting changes.

Dave Ketchum
>
> The methods that I call "defection-resistant" do much to alleviate  
> that problem,
> but don't eliminate it. They just push it to a secondary level,  
> where defection strategy is more
> complicated and counterintuitive, and therefore less likely to be  
> used.
>
>
>
> A party whose members might defect by not support your party in  
> Approval isn't likely
> to engage in the Machiavellianly bizarre strategy of conditionally  
> approving Democrats,
> Republicans, Libertarians and Nazis in order to gain some mutual  
> conditional approvals. Not
>
>
> if ethical reputation counts for anything.
>
> I've said that methods that don't get rid of that problem don't  
> significantly
> improve on ordinary Approval. All that can be said for the defection- 
> resistant methods
>
>
> is that they might improve a little on Approval, in a way.
>
> In other words, the improvement is questionable at best. And, for  
> most methods trying
> to improve on Approval, the improvement is outright illusory.
>
>
>
> I'd say that Approval can't be improved on, other than questionably  
> or doubtfully.
>
> I'd counter that SODA is a clear improvement for those who want to  
> delegate, and no worse for those who don't.
>
> Jameson
>
>
> Mike Ossipoff
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20120324/53e5a59e/attachment-0004.htm>