<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
On 8/28/2010 10:01 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:07D90502-DE70-475A-9491-69707493E892@audioimagination.com"
type="cite">
<br>
On Aug 28, 2010, at 12:11 PM, Michael Rouse wrote:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">The "degenerate to plurality voting"
concern is easy to disprove -- even plurality doesn't degenerate
to pure plurality voting, because in every plurality election
there are overvotes.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
so up is down, black is white, and plurality isn't plurality?
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
No, pure plurality <b>in theory</b> is not the same as plurality
in actual use. Even after a couple of centuries of telling people
not to vote for more than one person, in a typical election between
two and three percent of all ballots are spoiled because of
overvoting. With Approval voting, that same two to three percent
would<b> not </b>be spoiled, so even if everyone else bullet-voted
for a single candidate (like they do now), the result would still be
more representative of the electorate than the current system,
because votes that were previously ignored would now be counted. If
you take the same ballots with the same votes but get a better
result, it's hard to claim that Approval would be the same thing as
Plurality. <br>
<br>
And I have yet to see a convincing argument that some people
wouldn't actively (rather than merely accidentally) take advantage
of the change from "vote for one" to "vote for one or more." People
already vote for more than one candidate for things like city
councils. There are several elections where I would have liked to
pick more than one candidate (though granted, that number is dwarfed
by elections where I didn't want to vote for <i>any</i>
candidate!), and I have no doubt that candidates will start aiming
their message to take advantage of Approval voting if it were
enacted into law.<br>
<br>
As a side note, I actually prefer Condorcet-type methods to Approval
for single-winner seats, but Approval is simpler to explain and to
count (no more complicated than Plurality), and not subject to as
many serious voting paradoxes as IRV. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:07D90502-DE70-475A-9491-69707493E892@audioimagination.com"
type="cite">
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">In fact, in the infamous Florida debacle
of 2000, there were more overvotes than people who voted for
Ralph Nader -- 111,251 overvotes versus about 97,000 for Nader
(it's sadly amusing to see people complain about Nader being in
the race while ignoring an even bigger issue). In other words,
people accidentally cast an Approval ballot more often than they
purposely voted for the "spoiler." I can't imagine any scenario
where there would be fewer Approval ballots, if they were
counted instead of being tossed out.
<br>
<br>
Here's a USAToday link of Florida overvotes in 2000:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2001-05-10-overvotetable.htm">http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2001-05-10-overvotetable.htm</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
i am very aware of the overvote thing in the Florida 2000
election. the overvotes that i am concerned about are those where
the voter marked the box for a candidate and then wrote in the
very same candidate's name in the Write-In slot. according to
Florida law that vote should be counted upon manual recount (and a
manual recount should ensue when the margin is less than 0.25% and
537 votes out of 5 million easily satisfies that) because the
intent of the voter is clear, and then Al Gore won that election
by 170 (according to the media recount) and history would be far
different (and better). i am still convinced that that election
was stolen, particularly after the Bush v. Gore decision of
12/12/2000.
<br>
<br>
all this has nothing to do with the fact that voters don't like
forsaking their favorite candidate and will be less likely to mark
a ballot in such a way as to harm their favorite candidate. with
either score or approval vote, you may harm you favorite candidate
by non-zero scoring (or approving) any other candidate.
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
I am concerned about ballots where the intent was clear as well, but
I'm concerned about all 111,251 overvotes, not just the ones where
the same candidate was marked off and written in. The very simplest
voting reform would be to allow Approval voting for single-member
seats. All you have to do is add "or more" to the "Vote for one"
sentence at the top, and count every ballot. If you are going to
introduce the complexity of rank-order ballots, better to use
Condorcet than IRV.<br>
<br>
Michael Rouse<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:07D90502-DE70-475A-9491-69707493E892@audioimagination.com"
type="cite">
<br>
--
<br>
<br>
r b-j <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com">rbj@audioimagination.com</a>
<br>
<br>
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
----
<br>
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://electorama.com/em">http://electorama.com/em</a> for
list info
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>