Abd ulRahman Lomax abd-at-lomaxdesign.com |EMlist| wrote:
At 01:25 PM 6/7/2005, Araucaria Araucana wrote:
On 6 Jun 2005 at 21:20 UTC-0700, Abd ulRahman Lomax wrote:
> What if we had IRV with Approval? What is that called?
ERIRV(whole):
Equal-Rank [allowed], Instant Runoff Voting, whole [votes counted for
equal rank].
In other words, each round of the runoff becomes an approval election
rather than a single-vote-transfer election.
Let me make sure I understand. If we had a face-to-face meeting, and an
election was held by show of hands, which is not an uncommon thing, I've
never seen a rule that prevents a person from voting for more than one
candidate. And the winner is the person with the most hands shown.
Essentially, approval voting is *standard*. The oddity is the practice
of discarding ballots which are multiply-marked, as if they were somehow
defective. Does anyone know the history of that practice?
Thus IRV would automatically become a more sophisticated Approval
election if the discard rule were repealed.
I've certainly seen it noted that Approval voting would be very simple
to implement, requiring no changes to voting equipment, but I've never
seen this aspect of it mentioned, that it really only involves restoring
to secret ballots something that is standard practice in face-to-face
elections.
I can see only one argument for the practice of discarding
multiply-marked ballots, and it is singularly weak. A corrupt election
worker could weaken votes by adding extra marks. But this is truly weak
because in the event that this occurred, it would be closer to
legitimacy, under most circumstances, to count the ballot than to
discard it. Discarding it helps to accomplish the purpose of the corrupt
worker. The only way to truly void a ballot with extra marks would be to
mark all candidates. In which case it is moot whether the ballot is kept
or discarded. As long as one candidate remains unmarked, we would know
that the original voter's intent excluded that candidate.
Anyway, the point is that it is singularly odd that Approval is
considered a separate election method. It really is something that would
exist in simple plurality elections if not for a special rule created to
prevent it.
So promoting Approval voting might be as simple as pointing out the
injustice of it. I can't see any reason for *preventing* a person from
voting for more than one candidate. Allowing it merely adds to the
freedom of the voter without complicating the process. For me, the
question is "Why not" rather than "Why?"
You make an excellent point. Rather than defending Approval, Approval
advocates should go on the offensive and let the opponents explain why
the voter *shouldn't* be allowed to approve more than one candidate.
Having said that, let me play devil's advocate and give you a potential
reason.
The basic principle of voting is that you, the voter, are supposed to
specify who *you* think should be elected. If you were the only voter,
your vote should choose the winner. But if you approve more than one
candidate, you have not specified who you think should be elected. You
have not made a final decision. You have only narrowed the field.
Plurality forces you to make up your mind!
Well, that's one way to look at it.
--Russ
----
Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
