[EM] Bucklin/IRV hybrid? Motivated by MSV strategy

[Michael Ossipoff]

>
>
>
> ....
>
>
>>
I'd said:


> We often hear it said that Approval has a large strategic burden, but, for
>> most people, with our current candidate-lineup, there's nothing difficult
>> about it: Approve (only) the progressive candidates. That's optimal for
>> most people.
>>
>
You wrote:


> I'm sorry, but it seems to me that this is a particularly egregious
> example of the typical mind fallacy.
>


The what? What's that?

You continued:



> I believe the above is true for you, Mike, but even though I think I share
> most of your terminal values I'm quite sure it's not true for me, and I
> doubt it's true for most voters (in some cases, because of different values
>

Values based on what people say they want? Compare that to what the parties
offer in their

You mean that you're questioning my implication that the progressive
candidates are best for most people.

Look at their platforms. Many people are ideologically Pavlov-trained, in
regards to political words, but I'm just talking about which parties offer
the material end-results that people say they want,and offer genuine fixes
to the things that people complain about.

Anyway, as I said, talk to a Democrat-voter, and you'll find someone who
wants better, but is resigned to the Democrats as supposedly the best that
they can get--a "lesser-evil".   ...nearly always someone who doesn't like
the Democrat.

You'll find that the end-result material changes that the progressive
parties advocate address exactly the things that everyone complains about.
...and offer things that people are known to want. Dumping the Republocrats
and replacing them with progressive parties & candidates would bring what
most people say they want. The Republocrats embody everything that's the
opposite of what most people say they want.

So sure, in an honest election, by Approval, I'd advise most people to
approve all of the progressive candidates.

Many might just approve some of them, and that's fine too. Some of those
parties use language that puts many people off. Some of them propose
1-party governance-modes that many people disagree with. Fine, then approve
the ones that are acceptable to you. There are all kinds of progressive
parties.



> ; in other cases, because of different views of what course of action will
> best pursue those values).
>

That's why there's a wide variety of progressive parties.

But if you think that the Reublocrats are, for some reason, going to start
pursuing your values, in spite of their consistent record to represent the
opposite, then I invite you to read some party platforms, because maybe
there are parties that really offer what you'd prefer.

As for the top-set voting in Approval, I don't think that's what you're
disagreeing with. You disagree on what parties & candidates qualify for
top-set or bottom-set. But can you listen to Hillary and not say
"bottom-set"?

Michael Ossipoff
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20161101/c7094d24/attachment.htm>