[EM] To Condorcetists:

[Dave Ketchum]

Responding because you wrote, but with no authority.

On May 12, 2012, at 9:04 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:

> Condorcetists:
>
> You want to quibble forever about which rank-count is the best.

No - we want to move past that.
>
> You object that Approval doesn't let you help your 1st and 2nd  
> choices against your last choice, while still helping your
> 1st choice against your 2nd choice.

True that while Approval is much better than Plurality, it keeps this  
weakness.
>
> But the _big_ benefit starts when everyone can support their 1st and  
> 2nd choices at all.

We get back to wanting more when offered Approval's offering only best  
and worst and we are looking at a candidate we cannot stand grouping  
with best, yet desperately want to vote as being better than worst.
>
> Plurality very effectively puts a gag on everyone who would like  
> something better than the corrupt sleazes
> that your tv offers as "the two choices".
>
> "We have to hold our nose and vote for the lesser-evil [Democrat],  
> so that we don't waste our vote."

Again, we do not want this lesser-evil to be seen in the counting as  
desired equally with best, yet also see this lesser-evil as better  
than those we classify as worst.
>
> Do you have any idea how things would be if everyone could actually  
> support their favorites, and without
> having to try to guess on which one the other similar voters would  
> be combining their support?

For all to support their favorites is our desire, hoping we do equal  
seeing.
>
> Do you understand the difference between "liked" and "unliked"? And  
> what would happen if everyone could support
> whom and what they actually like best?
>
> Do you have any idea how far-reaching the resulting changes would be?
>
> No, I'm not saying that the resulting country and world would be  
> perfect in every way. I'm saying that it
> would be what people actually want--something that they can support  
> without holding their nose. But don't
> underestimate  the magnitude of that change.
>
> Though I consider Approval to be the best in some meaningful ways, I  
> also would like more--as you would.
>
> But, as I said, most of the benefit comes from everyone being able  
> to support 1st choice and 2nd choice _at all_. Let's not
> be greedy and dwaddle around forever about what else we could  
> ideally get.
>
> Do you want improvement or not? Or would you rather debate forever?

Do want the improvement we see Condorcet offering, and see you seeming  
to be promoting endless debate rather than working to move ahead.   
With Condorcet:
.     Those who still see Approval as good enough can vote it in  
Condorcet by using a single rank for all liked candidates.
..     Those who want to indicate unequal liking simply use unequal  
ranking.
..     The vote counters can see and respond to the unequal liking.
>
> And, as for helping 1st choice over 2nd choice, while helping both  
> over last choice, free of strategy need:
>
> You're in deinal about Gibbard-Satterthwaite.
>
> You're in denial about Condorcet's blatant and full-magnitude co- 
> operation/defection problem.

The problem can be overstated.  It requires willing plotters, whose  
efforts can be too easily seen and responded to - especially in  
significant elections such as for governor or senator.
>
> And you're in denial about millions of voters' need to litterally  
> maximally help the Democrat beat the Republican.

With better voting methods the party balance can vary in response to  
voter desires.
>
> And that's not even counting the good chance of successful offensive  
> burial strategy when there are more than 3 candidates.
>
> Mike Ossipoff