<html><head></head><body>Forest Simmons wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:Pine.HPP.3.95.1010502154337.19307C-100000@orion.cc.pcc.edu"><pre wrap="">Until we find an even more democratic (yet simple) method of aggregating<br>individual utility into social utility, I suggest that we stick with<br>various ways of implementing Approval.<br><br>In particular, we can implement Approval in various ways that overcome the<br>"lack of expressivity" objection of its opponents, and without having to<br>apologize if Approval doesn't happen to pick the candidate with the<br>greatest mean or median rank or rate, or any other candidate that would<br>have won under some other inferior standard of democracy.</pre>
</blockquote>
I do not subscribe to the belief that Approval lacks expressivity. I can express<br>
many preferences in Approval and will express the ones that I consider most<br>
significant in the context of a given election. If I express preferences that are<br>
of minor significance I am adding noise to my signal. Moreover, in Approval,<br>
I have reason to believe my fellow voters will not be expressing a lot of<br>
preferences that they regard as insignificant. Consequently, I feel assured that<br>
there will be less noise from other voters to drown out my expression. So I<br>
am very satisfied with the level of expression that Approval provides.<br>
<br>
This doesn't mean I don't support efforts to fine-tune Approval. It just means<br>
that even without additional improvements, Approval is already an excellent<br>
method. I agree with Forrest that some refinements may make Approval more<br>
appealing to those who seek more "expressivity" with ranked balloting.<br>
<br>
Richard<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:Pine.HPP.3.95.1010502154337.19307C-100000@orion.cc.pcc.edu"><pre wrap=""></pre>
</blockquote>
</body></html>