<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'>
(First, when I speak of ABucklin as an Approval option, that's only for brevity and simplicity, <br>because, starting from Approval, I'd offer AOC as an option or an alternative method, before ABucklin.<br>AOCBucklin, for me, would be next, after AOC. Still, as Abd suggested, ABucklin is the natural<br>1-balloting implementation of a reasonable and obvious collective deliberating process, and, thereby,<br>might be the first alternative voting system that people would accept--Then AOCBucklin could be reserved<br>for a later enhancement.)<br><br>I've said that, as a vote-management option in an Approval election, ABucklin can act in a way that isn't<br>really in the option-chooser's interest. I was referring to the fact that, if a candidate whom you don't like<br>gets a 1st-round majority, then you can't give a vote to anyone new, though it might well be in your interest<br>to do so. Stepwise-to-Majority was my attempt to improve on that, but it fails FBC.<br><br>What makes the ABucklin option sometimes not in your best interest is the same thing that lets it meet FBC, where<br>Stepwise-to-Majority fails it.<br><br>I know I've said this, but the fact that ABucklin, as a vote-management option in Approval, doesn't look very appealing<br>suggests that, in an ABucklin election, it's probably often or usually best to just vote as in Approval, giving top-rank<br>to some candidates and not ranking anyone else. Even if it's not a u/a election.<br><br>...but certainly if it is a u/a election. Sure, it could be tempting to use ABucklin's rank positions to distinguish between<br>the merit of your various acceptable candidates. But, by not ranking them all at top, you could let an unacceptable win:<br><br>Maybe an unacceptable will have a 1st place majority, and maybe your faction could give a certain candidate (acceptable to you) a bigger<br>1st choice majority if it top-ranks hir. ...even though you'd sincerely rank hir below some of your other acceptables.<br><br>So, in a u/a election, just top-rank all the acceptables, and don't rank any unacceptables. Vote as if it were Approval. And when<br>ABucklin is offered as an option on a u/a Approval election, don't use it--just vote an Approval ballot.<br><br>Looking at it from the other direction, the fact that it might sometimes be worthwhile to vote several rank positions in ABucklin<br>suggests that the ABucklin option could sometimes be genuinely a good idea in an Approval election.<br><br>Abd pointed out something that hasn't been sufficiently emphasized: ABucklin is just the 1-balloting implementation of a<br>familiar, natural and obvious deliberative process (well almost, because people aren't accustomed to Approval voting). That<br>could be a good introduction to, and argument for, ABucklin. Maybe people would thereby actually accept ABucklin before they'd<br>accept Approval. For instance, it's known that ABucklin was used in the early 20th century in some U.S. cities.<br><br>Of course, Approval voting is a built-in option in ABucklin, without explicitly adding it legislatively. A person can just<br>use the 1st rank position if they so choose.<br><br> AOC, AOCBucklin and SODA<br>could be options to be proposed later--Just as AOC, AOCBucklin, ABucklin and SODA could be added later as options for Approval.<br><br>Probably best to propose Approval first, but maybe people would really like ABucklin because it implements, in one balloting,<br>a familiar idea in collective deliberation.<br><br>But, if people are to like ABucklin as a first proposal, maybe they wouldn't like ER-Bucklin's delay that gives it MMC compliance. That<br>delay might seem a complication. I'm referring to how, in ER-Bucklin, if you vote for several candidates at the same rank position, <br>your ballot doesn't give to the candidates at your next rank position any sooner than it would have if you'd ranked those several<br>equally-ranked candidates in separate rank positions. That preserves MMC compliance for ER-Bucklin.<br><br>So maybe that delay should be left out of ABucklin as a first proposal. It could be added later as a later proposal. Without that delay,<br>ABucklin would lose its MMC compliance, giving it about zero merit-improvement on Approval. But still, it could be used as Approval,<br>via top-ranking. If that's the easiest and best route to Approval, then it's worthwhile even if it doesn't meet MMC and offers nothing<br>that ordinary Approval doesn't offer. Then, the MMC-preserving delay could be added as a subsequent proposal.<br><br>In case I haven't emphasized this enough, I propose ABucklin and all of the conditional methods, including AOCBucklin, as options in an Approval election.<br>Using the MTAOC kind of conditionality implementation, all of them, and SODA too, could be allowed as options in the same Approval<br>election. But I suggest starting by just proposing ordinary Approval, unless your initiative committee, or the polled public, insist on something<br>fancier than ordinary Approval. If they do, then offer AOC, ABucklin &/or AOCBucklin, and SODA as possible options in Approval elections. Options<br>are difficult to argue against.<br><br>Anyway, I propose that entire complete system, probably with those options added as later proposals of enhancements for Approval.<br><br>For that matter, MMT or GMAT could be an option in an Approval election too, but not both in the same election. And those methods don't<br>allow for conditionality for some candidates but not others. I prefer AOC, with which you can give conditional votes to some candidates,<br>and unconditional votes to others. It's the most fully-optional kind of conditionality.<br><br>GMATBucklin and MMTBucklin would be the same as AOCBucklin, except that they'd implement conditionality the GMAT way, or the MMT way,<br>instead of the AOC way. Of course GMATBucklin would be compatible with GMAT as options in the same Approval election.<br><br>I agree that MMPO (I prefer its MMPO2 version) and MDDTR might run into criticism trouble, even though I like them best, and so I don't <br>consider them to be major proposals, though one might mention them to an initiative committee or a public that insists on something fancier<br>than Approval. But I feel that it would be better, in that eventuality, to just offer the options of AOC, ABucklin, AOCBucklin and SODA, as I<br>described 3 paragraphs ago. All of those could be options in the same Approval election, in fact. Let the initiative committee decide what<br>it wants to include. SODA might sound a little too different, to the public, though I've gotten a favorable reaction to my brief definition of it.<br><br>MTA, MCA, MTAOC and MCAOC could be offered too, but people who want something fancier than Approval usually want an unlimited<br>ranking method, and there's a simplicity advantage in not speaking of too many options.<br><br>That all these methods/options are natural enhancements of ordinary Approval, and could be offered as options in an Approval election,<br>makes it all more proposable than other approaches to voting system reform.<br><br>So then, why don't you find out what single-winner elections are conducted in your municipal jurisdictions, and then contact local party <br>organizations and other political elections, and tell them about Approval. Suggest an Approval initiative.<br><br>And/Or, if you have a progressive city council or county board of supervisors (or whatever they call it in your area), suggest to them that they<br>offer a referendum about it.<br><br>Mike Ossipoff<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br> </div></body>
</html>