<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>
MMPO's problem and proposability:<br><br>Kevin, good point about MMPO's problem in the bad-example being more about lack of support,<br>as opposed to mere lack of favoriteness.<br><br>Yes, it's understandable if people don't like that. I can't say that I like it myself. But of course, for<br>perspective, it's necessary to consider it in comparison to other methods' problems. I concede<br>that MMPO is choosing wrongly in that example. But I still claim that, as problems go, that problem<br>isn't a strategy problem, or a problem that will prevent an electorate from getting what they want. And<br>isn't that the main important thing?<br><br>In that example, C isn't a Hitler. _None_ of the voters think that C is worse than both of the two most favorite<br>candidates.<br><br>Still, I fully concede that criticism about what happens in that example could easily be a problem for MMPO<br>in an enactment campaign. As I've said, opponents of progressive reform tend to have a lot more money<br>to spend than proponents have. Opposition to voting reform will be very heavily funded. That example will<br>be described on doorknob-hangers, and in broadcast-media, and people will hear about it a lot more than they'll<br>hear proponents' reply.<br><br>So, though I rank MMPO2 at the top of my merit-ranking, Approval is my proposal.<br><br>You know, all the advocates of better voting systems agree that Approval is better than Plurality. We disagree<br>only about how we'd improve on Approval. Isn't it obvious to all that Approval is the obvious thing that we all<br>can agree on? The obvious first proposal? It's the first, simplest, natural improvement on Plurality. Plurality<br>done right.<br><br>IRV in Burlingon:<br><br>The problem with what IRV did in Burlington is the effect that that sort of result can have on timid voters. <br><br>It will make them favorite-bury. The reason I don't like favorite-burial is because many people are inclined to resignedly<br>compromise on a disliked lesser-evil. Never compromise on or support an evil. That should be obvious.<br><br>A good and valid strategy in IRV is to rank the acceptable candidates in order of winnability. The only problem is that<br>many think that a disliked lesser-evil is "acceptable". If people knew what "acceptable" means, then IRV would be ok,<br>and the IRV strategy of ranking the acceptable candidates in order of winnability would be ok. <br><br>There's also nothing wrong with not using tht strategy, but, instead, just ranking sincerely. <br><br>That apparently, is what the Republicans did in Burlington. Nothing wrong with that. If the Republicans<br>and Democrates were a mutual majority, then one of those would have won. If the Democrat voters ranked the progressive<br>2nd, then the Democrats and Progressives were the mutual majority. The mutual majority won. <br><br>I and others have been a bit unfair to IRV in Burlington. IRV didn't do anything wrong in Burlington, except in the<br>sense that it did something that will make many people give elections away to a lesser-evil. Given better voting strategy,<br>IRV would be ok, as I've said. But, voters' strategy being what it is, IRV isn't a good proposal, and I still oppose it as<br>a voting system reform for the United States.<br><br>If the Republicans really considered the Democrat acceptable, not just a lesser-evil, then it would be fine for them<br>to rank hir 1st, strategically. If they consider it fair to not win without a mutual majority, then there's nothing wrong<br>with their sincere voting, and they'd have no objection to the resulting Progressive win.<br><br>(I'm going to reply to Abd's posting, but I have to go somewhere now, and so I'll probably have to reply on Monday.)<br><br>Mike Ossipoff<br><br><br>Mike Ossipoff<br><br> </div></body>
</html>