[EM] To Condorcetists:

[Juho Laatu]

On 19.5.2012, at 4.56, Michael Ossipoff wrote:

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

Agreed. Change of Plurality to Approval in a two-party system will cause changes in many areas.

> 
> 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.

Yes, one can approve many candidates.

> 
> 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.

It's ok to be able to approve all the candidates that one wants to. No worries. (Maybe some "worries" in the areas of need to make further changes in other parts of the system, and also in strategic voting.)

> 
> 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.

I tried to describe in last couple of mails what kind of impacts that change might have. Can you be a bit more specific on which parts were unclear. The whole concept and my worries are a bit vague also to me (and therefore maybe explanations too) because I don't exactly know how the society would react to such non-cassical and untested changes.

> 
> 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?

Just the usual and thorougly discussed strategy problems of the Approval method. I don't think you discussed them yet. They are however quite independent from the implications of using a compromise seeking single-winner methods instead of Plurality in a two-party political system. Therefore the problems of the Approval method could be discussed separately as a separate stand-alone topic if needed (but there is no need since I assume you are already familiar with those discussions).

> 
> 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.

I tried to answer all the questions that I found in your mail. I will also answer any additional ones or ones that I have so far left unanswered (within reason). Just point them out.

Btw, do you promise to answer questions that I think you did not answer yet?

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

Ok, that may be a problem. Just point out where my description was not sufficient or where I left something unanswered, or present new clarifying questions.

> 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.

My intention was not to refer to governments here, just to the overall number of parties with representatives.

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

Ok, but that question and the qustion of how to nominate a government will pop up after there will be more than two large parties.

> 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?

Now I understand that you are flexible with respect to the strength of party affiliations. I also note that you say: "But Approval doesn't care about party affiliation, and neither do I."

> And if everyone's strategizing, Approval will
> elect the candidate who is better than expectation for the most voters.

That's an interesting positive attitude towards Approval. I guess you mean "better or equal to expectation" - or should people always not approve the "expected" winner?

26: A > B >> C
26: B > A >> C
24: C >> A > B
24: C >> B > A
- A and B are Democrats and C is a Republican

How should voters vote after seeing these (quite reliable) poll results if they follow the "better than expectation" strategy? Should A and B be seen as the expected winners with 50% winning chance both? Maybe 50% of the voters should guess that A wins and 50% that B wins (?).

> 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. 

I prefer not to take position on what the U.S. citizens should do with their political system.

> You seem to be sure that, with Approval, one party would keep winning every
> election year.

No. Use of Approval introduces additional winning options when compared to current Plurality.

> 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.

No. This has nothing to do with Approval (applies to Condorcet too). I mean that the system where there are two dominant 50+% parties that would systematically alternate in power would be gone. This means that voters can not trust that in the next or the following election the current party in power will be replaced with "their party". Their own party might not get in power ever, and some party that they don't like might stay in power (maybe as part of coalition governments) longer than today.

> 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.

I wrote above that I'm happy to respond to all your questions and other requests (my plan is to answer shortly to short questions).

Will you answer in the same way to those my questions that I think are still unanswered?

Juho