[EM] Approval Voting and Long-term effects of voting systems

[robert bristow-johnson]

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------

Subject: Re: [EM] Approval Voting and Long-term effects of voting systems

From: "Daniel LaLiberte" <daniel.laliberte at gmail.com>

Date: Tue, November 22, 2016 2:33 am

To: "Michael Ossipoff" <email9648742 at gmail.com>

Cc: "EM" <election-methods at lists.electorama.com>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------



>

> I imagine even plurality was expected to be a good enough voting system,

> but despite the intention by at least some of the framers of the US

> constitution to avoid political parties, they emerged as a dominant force

> anyway. Should they have known this was likely to happen? Could they have

> known with a little study?
sure, if they had been thinking like Duverger had.  Plurality voting harms voters who vote for minor candidates because these voters later discover that their own political interests would have been better served if they had voted for the major candidate
they disliked least.  After experiencing this harm for one or two election cycles, voters will figure out who the "major candidates" are and vote for the major candidate they dislike least.  From that two major parties emerge because for any issue of contention (and the issues
that are not contentious don't really matter in an election), it's "Either your fer us or agin' us."  It's no coincidence that the U.S. Democrat and Republican parties take opposite sides on nearly all issues.  That's what a two-party system gets us, and Plurality voting gets us
a dominant two-party system.  Except in my state of Vermont, there are no viable third parties and very few viable Independent candidates that are elected.
> Can we do better now?
Yes, but not with Approval.  Approval will devolve into Plurality because voters will hesitate
to approve their second-choice out of fear of hurting their first-choice (and if you don't believe that, consider the "Bernie-or-Bust" crowd that wrote in Bernie in November).  If a sufficient number of voters vote only for their favorite candidate, then Approval is equivalent to
Plurality.

> I'd like to claim, and help other people understand, that Approval Voting

> is not just one of the best voting systems but unquestionably far and away

> the best,
And you're wrong.  It's a silly claim.  It's what YOU need to understand.
> at least for current society and technology, both of which are

> still surprisingly, um, easily confused.
I am not confused.  And neither you nor Michael are able to answer this simple basic question:
Should a voter that knows their candidate preferences, but does not know "predictive information" (which is a silly guess anyway, it
shouldn't matter who is likely to win for a voter to express their will), should this voter Approve of their second-choice candidate?  Should they or should they not?
You cannot convincingly answer that question in the general case and neither can Michael.  Then you cannot claim that
Approval voting frees voters from the burden of tactical voting.  Then it's hard to see how it is better than Plurality.
You can be a cheerleader for Approval.  Warren Smith seems to get a few of those, but it doesn't change the basic problem with it.
Ranked-Choice Voting
requires no overt tactics from the voter.  The voter knows how to rank their favorite candidate and the voter knows how to rank their second-favorite candidate and the voter knows how to rank their least-favorite candidate.  And it doesn't matter what the "predictive information"
says, the voter's interests translate no differently to the ballot.  (But, like a spoiler in Plurality voting, an unpleasant surprise with IRV may encourage voters to vote tactically in the future, so just a ranked ballot is not sufficient, and that is what Rob Ritchie needs to learn.  A
tabulation method that decides the election no differently than would simple majority between the two leading candidates is also necessary and that method is one of the Condorcet-compliant methods.)



--
r b-j                  rbj at audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20161122/0494e347/attachment.htm>