<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'>
Abd:<br><br>I'd said that, in Plurality, voting for an agreed-upon compromise can be valid strategy, but that<br>people shouldn't vote for an evil, even if a lesser one.<br><br>You said:<br><br>That depends on the definition of evil, doesn't it?<br><br>[endquote]<br><br>I don't define "an evil". Nor do I use the term, except when referring to what others have said, when<br>they use that term.<br><br>Here is how dictionaries typically define the noun phrase "an evil":<br><br>"Something morally reprehensible, or something that causes sorrow, distress, calamity, harm, misfortune, or destruction."<br><br>Many or most people who vote for a Democrat candidate refer to hir as a "lesser-evil", and to the Republican candidate as the<br>"greater evil". It's fair to assume that those Democrat voters are using "an evil" with the above-quoted meaning.<br><br>If you're _absolutely sure_ that the only two winnable candidates are both "evils", as defined above, then of course<br>you could argue that it's pragmatic to vote for the lesser one. <br><br>Two things wrong with that:<br><br>1. You don't really know that the Democrat and the Republican are the only winnable candidates. Could it be that they<br>always win only because you and the other "lesser-evil" suckers keep voting for them because you think that they're the<br>only winnable candidates? Yes. Self-fulfilling pessimism. Read about Myerson-Weber equilibrium. Read about Duverger's theorem.<br><br>If you think that the Democrat and the Republican are both what the Democrat voters are calling them (via the above-quoted<br>definition), then could it be that you shouldn't base your vote on the _guess_ that they're the only candidates who could win, even if people<br>voted honestly?<br><br>2. There's such a thing as principle too. Even if it were certain that the only candidates who could win are as<br>described in the above-quoted definition, are you really so without principle that you'd endorse them by<br>voting for one of them? --even though they're virtually identical?<br><br>You continued by saying that the Democrat voters who call the Democrat a "lesser-evil" (and then vote for hir) have "cut [themselves] off<br>from humanity". You tend toward over-dramatic hyperbole. If you said that they've cut themselves off from their own feelings and judgement,<br>then I might agree with you.<br><br>Then you said:<br><br>"After all, if a candidate is evil, and might win, and spread his evil, then killing him would become morally justified"<br><br>[endquote]<br><br>...only according to _your_ beliefs. I disagree. I don't share your beliefs, Abd Ul. Maybe your beliefs call for killing those whom you label "evil",<br> but not many here would agree with you.<br><br>I suggest, instead, that it's sufficient to not vote for them. <br><br>How much harm can they do when we don't vote for them, and they're no longer in office?<br><br>You continued:<br><br>"This is the province of obsession and insanity, its a form of paranoia [and a run-on sentence], that readily identifies the other as evil."<br><br>[endquote]<br><br>All these strong words for the Democrat voters who refer to the Democrat candidate as "the lesser-evil"? <br><br>I don't use the term "evil" (except, as I said, when quoting and commenting on what Democrat voters say). That word is too emotionally-loaded,<br>too dramatic, and has too many meanings.<br><br>I've referred to the Republocrat candidates and parties as corrupt, bought, sleazy, dishonest, etc. I feel that such more-clearly-defined <br>and less emotional words are more expressive and useful as a practical description.<br><br>And no, you're mistaken if you don't think that others agree with me about that description. Only someone like a drug-dealer is respected<br>as little as a (Republocrat) politician. The corruption, dishonesty, sleaze and bought-ness of Republocrat politicians is common-knowledge.<br><br>I didn't find this part of this posting of yours until now, because, when I first replied to it, there wasn't time to get this far into the posting.<br><br>Suggested Plurality strategy:<br><br>Find the sincere CW.<br><br>If there is one, and s/he is acceptable to you:<br><br>Communicate with the people whose favorite is that CW or candidates whom you prefer to hir. Get an agreement <br>among those people to vote for that sincere CW.<br><br>If there isn't a sincere CW (due to a sincere cycle), or if s/he is unacceptable to you:<br><br>Communicate with the people who pretty much agree with you about what and who is acceptable. Determine which of<br>those mutually acceptable candidates can get the most votes. Get an agreement among that set of voters to vote for hir.<br><br>[end of suggested Plurality strategy]<br><br>How to find the sincere CW?<br><br>I've suggested this before: Do pre-election polling. Preferably by rank balloting. Progressives around the country could<br>do polls in their areas. In my first posting on this topic, I described the process in detail. It isn't necessary to poll in every<br>community. There might not be that many poll volunteers. I discussed how to aggregate their results. I made that suggestion<br>in a posting that I posted soon after returning to this mailing list in October or November of 2011. The posting was clearly<br>labeled in its subject-line.<br><br>What count method should be used? I suggest that the strategy problems existing in actual elections could also mess up the<br>results of a Plurality-strategy-informing poll. For that reason, I suggest ICT as the method for counting the rankings. <br><br>Though I like MMPO2 and MDDTR, their burial strategy could prevent the method from finding the sincere CW. I feel<br>that ICT is the method that is sufficiently strategy resistant, and likely to find a sincere CW.<br><br>Of course ICT would also be one of the best choices for the official voting system for elections. So would Approval.<br>So would Approval with the various options that I've been discussing. Approval, and Approval with options, has the<br>tremendous advantage that people wouldn't be asked to accept a relatively complicated rank-count, and take our<br>word for it that it won't have some problem that makes it worse than Plurality. Those options include ABucklin, <br>and its various conditional versions too.<br><br>One nice thing about Approval is that it's so simple that no "study" is needed. Nor is it necessary to test it<br>in local municipal elections, to determine that it improves on Pluralilty.<br><br>And one nice thing about options is that no one can really object to them. Who could object to the ABucklin<br>option in an Approval election--an option by which a voter could opt to delay or refuse some of hir approvals?<br><br>But start by proposing only plain ordinary Approval.<br><br>Anyway, returning to the Plurality-strategy-informing poll: <br><br>It will probably take a long time to get another voting system. Voting system reform advocates, including the<br>people at EM, mostly want to argue about which relatively complicated method is the ideal best. Many won't even<br>consider anything other than their own complicated favorite as worthy of proposing. That isn't<br>very promising for progress. So it's a safe guess that it will be several generations before there is any actual voting system reform.<br>If ever.<br><br>But, in the meantime, the situation isn't hopeless: We can at least make good use of the method that we already<br>have (Plurality), as I described above.<br><br>Mike Ossipoff<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br> </div></body>
</html>