[EM] To Condorcetists:

[Dave Ketchum]

This started as a thread to talk a bit about Condorcet.

That has faded away, and all I see is trivia about Plurality vs  
Approval - too trivial a difference between them to support enough  
thoughts to be worth writing this much, even less for reading.

DWK

On May 18, 2012, at 9:56 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:

>> 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