[EM] What happens when Approval doesn't let you vote Favorite>Dem>Repub?

[Michael Ossipoff]

You know, that's the Condorcetists' and IRVists' objection to Approval.

Sure, the people who now feel that they need to vote for Dem as a
lesser-evil, instead of for Favorite, believing that only Dem and Repub are
"viable", will probably still feel a need to approve Dem in the 1st Approval
election, though s/he can and will approve Favorite too.

In fact, even after the 1st Approval election result, many or most
lesser-evil voters might still feel that need to approve Dem, just in case
Dem might be the only candidate who can beat Repub. Never underestimate a
lesser-evil's voter's need to help a Democrat beat a Republican.

That's what the Condorcetists' and IRVists' objection is about. But how
valid is it? What will soon happen?

Remember, after the 1st Approval election, in which the non-Republocrat
parties and candidates have somehow managed to make at least some people
aware of their different platforms, policies and proposals, the count
results are going to show many more votes for non-Republocrats, now that
everyone, for the first time, has the freedom to rate anyone as they
themselves choose to, and no longer constrained by the lesser-of-2-evils
problem.

So, the greater support evident for non-Republocrat parties and candidates,
in the 1st Approval election's count-results will have these results:

1. No longer will the media be able to say that the Republicans and
Democrats are the only viable parties, "the two choices". Maybe many will
still feel cowed to approve Dem, but they'll know that there is definitely
non-ignorable competition outside of Repblocratia. The media will no
therefore no longer be able to justify completely ignoring the
non-Republocrats and refusing to mention their (significant) showing in the
election-results. Nor will media be able to justify a refusal to allow
non-Republocrats into debates. There will start being discussion of the
non-Republocrat platforms. These will be mentioned and discussed in magazine
articles, newspaper articles, books, and call-in shows. The cat will be out
of the bag. The body will have fallen out of the trunk.

2. Therefore, it will be increasingly obvious to everyone that, in the
overall scheme, the Republicans and Democrats are actually much more similar
than people thought--virtually identical, in comparison to the genuine
variety that has become known to be popular. People will notice the
improvements offered by non-Republocrats, and they'll wonder why the
Democrats and Republicans, to whom they'd previously remained loyal, aren't
offering those benefits too. After all, aren't the Democrats "the party of
the little man?" :-)
Don't Democrat and Republican candidates continually offer "change"?  :-)
They promise those things because they know that the public want those
things.  But the public will now notice that they don't offer squat, in
regards to those things. They'll notice that it's been one big lie, all this
time. And they'll notice who _does_  genuinely base their platforms on those
very things.

3. Remember that, as things are now, the popular belief isn't just that the
Greens or Libertarians might not be able to beat the Republican. The belief
is that no one (except oneself) likes them or wants anything other than the
Republocrats and what they do. Each person feels isolated, the only person
who wants something better--"I'd better go with the larger group, and help
the best that is viable, the Democrat." It isn't just that the Greens might
not win. It's that the Greens aren't even viable at all, not even on the
map. That will change, after the first Approval result, due to #2, above. 

Yes, people will know that if they don't approve Dem, the Republicans might
win. They won't know that the Republicans will win for sure. They'll know
that they might. Maybe they'll even think that the Repubs would probably
win. But that's very different from inevitability. And how bad would it be
if the Republicans won? Would that be an entirely new and unprecedented
disaster? Hardly. It has been happening in roughly every other election.
Combine that with the increasingly obvious mutual identity of the Repubs and
Dems.

You see, as it is now, with Plurality, a vote for Green is perceived as a
straight inevitable giveaway to Repub. The 1st Approval count result will
show that there _is_ something to hope for, in the form of a non-Republocrat
win. That will be entirely new. 

4. When there are, say, 3 viable candidates, on a left-right spectrum, then,
to the extent that anyone thinks there's a difference between "middle" and
right, the supporters of the middle of those has little or no strategic
reason to approve either extreme. That's because, if the differences aren't
negligible, the extremes need the middle more than the middle supporters
need the extremes, due to the extremes' greater distance from eachother.

5. The more it looks as if Green might be a genuine threat, the more the
Repubs will approve the Democrat. So, to the extent that Green-preferrers
have reason to not approve Dem, the Rebubs will likewise have reason to
approve Dem. So the risk of the consequences of not approving Dem will be
greatly reduced.

6. Suppose that, say, the Green gets almost as many approvals as does the
Dem. Due to #s 4 and 5, there will be good reason to believe that that means
that the Greens can beat the Repubs.

7. Remember that even discussing #s 4-7 at all assumes that some people will
still perceive some reason to believe that the Dems or Repubs are the best,
and actually different from eachother. But that scam will have fallen
through, due to #s 1-3.

Yes, not being able to vote A>B>C can sometimes be a nuisance. That's why
I'd prefer ICT. But let's distinguish a nuisance from a distortion of public
wishes, on a monstrous scale, due to forced falsification of candidate
ratings. And yes, it is falsification, when you now rate Compromise as
better than Favorite, and, in fact, rate Favorite at _bottom_, equal to
Worst. It's forced, because the balloting rule requires you to rate all but
one candidate at Bottom, even if it's a lie, strongly contrary, nearly
opposite, to what you feel.

And, because of the facts in the paragraph before this one, there is a
strong case for court repeal of forced falsification. There is certainly a
much stronger, simpler, more compelling and undeniable case for saying that
forced falsification does no good, and does harm, and that it's repeal would
be an improvement and only an improvement.

Mike Ossipoff