[EM] To Condorcetists:

[Michael Ossipoff]

> How could using Approval instead of Plurality in our single-member 
> districts be bad? I've talked about how Approval's results would 
> differ from those of Plurality.

Proportional representation and two-party systems are two well known
approaches. Approval with single winner districts is a new kind of a system,
and that may bring surpises (I wrote about them before the referenced line)

[endquote]

No you didn't. That's why I asked the question.

And now you're just repeating the vague and unspecified worry that you
expressed before.

Will it be different with Approval? You be it will. 

I'm going to repeat this: It will be different in regards to the fact that
people who think they need to support a lesser-evil can also support
everyone they like, including those they regard as the best.

It will be different because the voter hirself can be the one to decide to
which candidate(s) s/he wants to give 1 point instead of 0 points, instead
of the method deciding that all but one must get 0 points. That change seems
to worry you. "What will happen as a result?", you ask.

What will happen is that voters will be in charge of their ballots. You keep
repeating that  you're worried about the results. I keep asking you what bad
results you expect from the above changes. And instead of answering that
question, you just repeat your unspecified and vague worry.

You said:

. Also Approval method itself is not free of problems (my key concern is its
strategic problems when there are more than two potential winners).

[endquote]

And what problems might those be?

Ones that I've already answered about?

Because I've already answered lots of claims about problems, you need to
say, specifically, what problems you mean, and how you answer my rebuttals
to the claims about those problems. Remember that one of the
conduct-guidelines for EM is that we shouldn't keep repeating claims that
have already answered, without first responding to the answers.

You claim a problem. I answer you about it. You just keep repeating that
there would be problems. 




> You say that hasn't been discussed enough?
> Ok, shall we discuss the properties of the political system that would 
> result from choosing what people actually like, when voters are free 
> to indicate all the candidates that they like? How would it differ from
now?

> If you're suggesting that there would be some drawback, disadvantage 
> or bad result that could happen because we elect candidates and 
> parties that are more liked than what Plurality elects, then please let's
hear them.

You said:

I have now understood that your ideal (or actually best reachable) target
system is a system that elects from few large parties, where few > 2. 

[endquote]

You keep saying that too. I have no idea why. I've never said what number of
parties in government is ideal. Approval will elect as many parties as
people like. 
...just as I said when you made that statement before.

I don't care how many parties are in government. It could be one. It could
be many.

You continue:

Technically multi-winner elections would use single-winner districts and
Approval. Also the president could be elected with Approval.

[endquote]

Yes, in this country we use single-member districts. As I've said, PR isn't
a feasible proposal here. So yes, my proposal is to use Approval for all of
our state and national single-winner elections. Ideally we'd elect the
president in one big direct election, but maybe at first we can use Approval
in each state. In any case, Congress is the area where a single-winner
method is straightforwardly used. But remember that we supposedly
_effectively_ use Plurality,  in each state, to allocate that state's
electoral votes. We should use Approval instead.

You said:

At some point I thought that you might aim at electing good individuals
without strong party affiliations, but maybe you are more party oriented
that that.

[endquote]

I corrected that strange mis-statement of yours in my previous post. And now
you're just repeating your mis-statement again.

I have no idea where you get that statement. I haven't said anything about
aiming for individuals with or without strong party affiliation.

When people are approving whom they like, Approval will elect the most liked
candidate. It will do so whether or not s/he has strong party affiliations,
and regardless of whether or not s/he belongs to a part at all. Which part
of that don't you understand?

And yes, if people are strategizing, and voting for a compromise that they
don't really like, at least, unlike in Plurality they're also voting for
everyone they really like. And if everyone's strategizing, Approval will
elect the candidate who is better than expectation for the most voters. I
say all this for completeness. But Approval doesn't care about party
affiliation, and neither do I.

You said:

I assume that you expect most candidates to have a strong party affiliation.

[endquote]

Most candidates do, don't they. So what. Maybe there will be a very popular
independent. I myself would approve an independent if s/he endorsed or wrote
a platform that clarifies hir policy proposals, and if I liked those
policies.

You said:

One topic that may need further discussion is the dynamic behaviour of the
proposed method. You seemd to assume that the method would converge towards
electing candidates from few well known major parties. 

[endquote]

You've been given no reason to believe that. I never said that Approval
would elect from a few parties. It might elect from one party; it might
elect from many parties, in the various states, in the various election
years. I never said that it would or wouldn't elect from well-known parties.


I would suggest that unknown parties would have a difficult time in an
election by most methods, however  :-)



You said:

Could be but I'm not sure. People could also bullet vote (especially the old
party supporters), and the old parties could still dominate (although less
than before).

[endquote]

In the world of "could", anything is possible. I've explained that most
people are disgusted with "the politicians", by which they refer to the
Democrats and Republicans (the old parties to which you refer). If it makes
you feel better to think that they might want to keep on electing them, with
a more free method, then believe whatever makes you happy.

You continue:

There would be no alternating power balance anymore

[endquote]

Every four years, sometimes longer, people rise up in anger, mad as hell and
not going to take it anymore, and say, "Throw the b*st*rds out!". So if the
Republicans are in, they elect a Democrat. If the Democrats are in, they
elect a Republican. 

You sound like you really like that--from a distance of some thousands of
miles. It must make a great show. My sincerest apologies if it doesn't
continue for you.

You seem to be sure that, with Approval, one party would keep winning every
election year. I have no idea how you're so sure of that. You see, I'd have
expected that it's also possible that several parties would be liked, and
sometimes one would win, and sometimes another would win. Maybe sometimes an
independent would win (if s/he clearly outlines her policy proposals). The
public might experiment with first one party, and then another. Or (as you
seem to believe) they might prefer one so much that that's all they want to
elect. Unlike you, however, I don't make a prediction on that.


You said:

, which could mean that people could feel that they can not change the
policy however they vote. 

[endquote] 

So Juho is saying that, in Approval, the voters would be unable to change
the policy, no matter _how_ they vote. 

So if most or all voters change their voting, and approve candidates who
would implement a different and new policy, Juho thinks that, no matter how
they vote, they won't be able to change anything. Juho forgot to tell us why
he thinks that :-)

I'm willing to spend as much time as it takes to answer specific substantive
objections and claims. I don't have time to continuing answering what I've
been answering in these posts.

You can't expect me to spend my time continuing to reply to you if you can't
do your part, by being specific and knowing what you mean.

I'm going to finish replying to this post,  in a few minues. Someone else in
my household wants to use the computer. But I can't justsify wasting time in
this way. You'd have to start being a lot more specific and clearer.

To be continued...

Mike Ossipoff
for list info