Sometimes I comment on mis-statements or misunderstandings in postings, and I�ll do so now.
Russ said:
I've already brought up the issue of inaccurate polling data, and I think the effect of such uncertainty needs to be addressed before the effectiveness of Approval can really be evaluated.
I comment:
From the very start, since Approval was proposed by Weber, Approvalstrategy under uncertainty has been thoroughly discussed. I mention that, lest anyone be concerned that that has never been discussed and that therefore Approval has never really been evaluated.
Russ continued:
Someone somewhere has probably addressed this issue, but I am personally unaware of it.
I reply:
Yes, someone has. Lots of people have. Articles that Russ copied to his website did.
As Forrest pointed out, lying by those who count and report polls is more of a problem than lying by those who are polled. Any worthwhile study of poll-lying would have to take the former into account.
But, as Forrest also pointed out, with polls being so unreliable, our elections are 0-info elections, till Approval or Condorcet election results (using verifiable balloting) are available as an information source for voters.
In the 1st Approval election, then, vote for all the candidates whose merit is above the mean. And, meanwhile, with Plurality, just use the 0-info Plurality strategy of voting for your favorite. Some people believe that they�re voting strategically in our Plurality elections, but they�re doing so based on thoroughly unreliable information, and it would be better to use the 0-info strategy of voting for one�s favorite.
Mike Ossipoff
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
