<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>James,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I'm not at all willing to
judge theoretical differences of IRV versus ER-IRV, but I I have strong
opinions on application of approval votes. </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>I take
the "one person, one vote" ideal seriously in politics. I can only seriously
support the option of split-votes for tied rankings as a natural extension to
IRV.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I can accept ER-IRV as an experimental method to
consider, but I disapprove of the name "Equal Rankings IRV" since
it suggests nothing about how equal rankings are counted, and may
equally apply to "Approval votes" as well as "split votes" as far as the name
implies. I'd defend the name ER-IRV as best reserved to imply "split votes"
(since IRV is based on "single vote" STV which definitely could only count equal
rankings as split votes). I'd most certainly prefer a completely different name
for whole votes counted, or if not, then something like "Approval IRV"
which to me more accurately described the hybrid counting scheme.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I see two political arguments against approval
counting:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>1. "Single vote" methods allow clear measures for
candidate strengths even if there's a strategic betrayal of favorites that
prepoll as weak and unlikely to win. When there's no (zero-sum) "cost" to
offering extra votes, voters will offer them more as strategic protests or
encouragements to losers, and will (if wise) withhold them to the degree
they can affect the winner. A candidate that gets 5% of the vote in a "single
vote" count have 5% of the population supporting them. 5% in an approval count
means nothing since it comes from an unknown combination of "favorite choice",
"pity votes", "insincere tactical votes", and general mischief votes. I don't
know about the average candidate, but if I was running I'd not want "pity votes"
or "protest votes" in my count. I want to know how many voters are willing to
stand behind me alone over all others. I would gladly accept a "half-vote" by
voters willing to offer me equal to another candidate since it represents a
sacrifice.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>2. "Single vote" methods (plurality/runoffs better)
promote ideological opposites as the top two candidates. These two combined
give a clear coverage of a single integrated "majority" and single "minority"
position. Those top-two rank prestege will influence how the parties
will move in future elections and how the general population lies when limited
to a single choice. In comparison Approval votes, will, in 3-way races at
least, tend towards promoting two similar candidates into the top-two
positions, and say little about the real "center-of-mass" of the voters in
general.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I see the logic of "single vote" as a defendable
right, and "approval vote" counting as, at-best, an indulgence allowed under the
whim of a kind majority. That is, if a majority of voters are disinterested
in supporting more than one candidate, then it doesn't matter that a minority
would like this option. In contrast, a "split vote" option, if counting isn't
impeded is more likely to be judged as a harmless option, even if a majority may
still reject it as unnecessary.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I can't offer any serious interest in
"approval count" methods for politics. I judge them "mostly harmless"
for affecting winners, and don't expect there ever to be a political majority
will to test it.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Tom Ruen</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 06:32:28 -0400<BR>To: <A
href="mailto:election-methods-electorama.com@electorama.com">election-methods-electorama.com@electorama.com</A><BR>From:
"James Green-Armytage" <<A
href="mailto:jarmyta@antioch-college.edu">jarmyta@antioch-college.edu</A>><BR>Subject:
[EM] equal rankings IRV<BR><BR>Dear Voting Gurus,<BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>...</FONT><BR>I'm wondering how everyone else feels about equal rankings
IRV (ER-IRV).<BR>Really, I'm welcoming everyone to give their opinion on the
matter, even<BR>if they're just agreeing with what someone else has said. I
guess you<BR>could say I'm trying to take a poll or something.<BR><FONT
face=Arial size=2>...</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>