<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Of course, if there are 2 sets of candidates such that the merit difference within the two sets are negligible compared to the merit difference between the sets, then it’s clear that defeating the worse set is more important than choosing among the better set.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>So I mis-spoke when I said that, in ICT, if there’s a C/D problem, you should automatically vote E in 2<sup>nd</sup> place. All of {A,B,C,D,E} belong in 1<sup>st</sup> place.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>It’s just that, in the special situations where in Approval, you’d not approve E, _<i>that’s</i>_ when you’d move E down to 2<sup>nd</sup> place in ICT.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The various C/D solutions in Approval can, in some circumstances, call for not approving E. Those would also call for demoting E to 2<sup>nd</sup> place in ICT.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>It’s the same strategy response, in both methods, though it’s different in the 2 methods. Obviously, that response is considerably milder and less costly in lCT. That’s ICT’s advantage over Approval.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Of course, in a u/a election, certain conditions would have to be met before you’d let the C/D solutions make you (in Approval) not approve E, or (in ICT) move E down to 2<sup>nd</sup> place.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>For instance, maybe E is only barely or marginally acceptable. &/or maybe, perhaps due to things said by E supporters and organization, there’s doubt about whether E really would implement hir good platform policies or campaign promises. In a u/a election, to justify the non-approval or the 2<sup>nd</sup> place demotion of E, A,B,C, or D should have a (good?) chance of winning.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>If E is clearly the big favorite among {A,B,C,D,E}, and the only one winnable, then you don’t want to do the non-approval or demotion. I’m assuming that E is at least marginally acceptable in a u/a election.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Even if E supporters attack or continually bad-talk A,B,C and D, that isn’t a practical reason to not approve E or to demote E to 2<sup>nd</sup>, if E’s platform would bring some genuine improvement, and is on the acceptable side.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>And if E’s lesser improvements would result at least in a more open system, with more open and honest media, better media and ballot access, etc., that would be a start toward better improvement, no matter how much E’s supporters are criticizing A, B, C, and D.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Later, with E elected, if things aren’t good, then of course E is unlikely to get your full support next time, and the various C/D solutions would come into play if E remains marginally acceptable. Or maybe E has by then become unacceptable and wouldn’t be considered for approval or top ranking.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Mike Ossipoff<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>