<html><DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>The reason why Mike Ossipoff defines "sincerity" the
<DIV></DIV>>way he defines it is: He wants to be able to claim that
<DIV></DIV>>it doesn't make any sense to vote "insincerely" under
<DIV></DIV>
<P>>Approval Voting</P>
<P>. Therefore he defines "sincerity" in </P>
<DIV></DIV>>such a way that even bullet voting is a "sincere"
<DIV></DIV>>voting behaviour under Approval Voting.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Therefore you should ask yourself: "Is bullet voting
<DIV></DIV>>a sincere voting behaviour?" And if your answer is "No!"
<DIV></DIV>
<P>Some of us here have agreed that there's nothing insincere about not voting a</P>
<P>sincere preference. "Which do you prefer, chocolate or vanilla?" "I won't answer that."</P>
<P>That isn't an insincere answer. The person is merely refusing to make a statement. </P>
<P>Insincerity would be if he said he prefers chocolate when really he prefers vanilla.</P>
<P> </P>
<P>So that's one reason why, in Approval, voting for Gore & Nader, and not voting one's</P>
<P>preference between them , isn't insincere. But, in any case, even if you, Markus, believe</P>
<P>that it's insincere to decline to express a sincere preference, then even you must not</P>
<P>believe that it's insincere when it's unavoidable. That's why my initial sincerity definition</P>
<P>was worded: "...or leave unvoted a sincere preference which the balloting system in use</P>
<P>would have allowed him to vote in addition to the preferences that he actually voted."</P>
<P> </P>
<P>I was in a hurry when I replied to this before. When applied to Approval, my</P>
<P>initial definition of sincerity means the same thing as that which Brams & Fishburn</P>
<P>apply to Approval. That's what I meant to say before.</P>
<P> </P>
<P>Mike Ossipoff</P>
<P> </P><br clear=all><hr>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at <a href="http://explorer.msn.com">http://explorer.msn.com</a><br></p></html>