FBC isn't complicated:
It's been recently claimed here that FBC is too complicated for voters to
understand, or to understand the value of. That's absurd. How complicated is
this?:
With LU, Approval, or CR, you'd have no reason to vote someone over your
favorite.
(LU stands for Least-Unpreferred, an alternative name for MMPO)
That isn't complicated. And it isn't an unfamiliar concern. All voters are
familiar with that stragtegic need,, and up to half of them vote
accordingly.
Power truncation isn't dangerous:
As I pointed out, and as Chris has agreed, for the voter who uses
equal-ranking and power truncation, MMPO is Approval. In an
acceptable-unacceptable situation, MMPOpt is Approval. So, is Approval
dangerous? If not, then power truncation isn't dangerous.
Reform isn't whiny:
Abd ul said that it was whiny of me to suggest that it would be better if
James ordered the alternatives in his poll so as to list first the ones that
are favorite to someone, alternatives claimed by someone to be the best for
one or more kinds of electorate.
Abd ul said that it was unnecessary for me to say that, because I could have
just moved my favorite alternative(s) to an earlier place in the list.
That's a stupid statement, for several reasons:
1. Several people had already voted. Unless they're going tro re-vote,
moving MMPOpt up in the ballot wouldn't have any effect on those people's
votes, unless I likewise modified their votes.
2. Saying that anyone can move their favorite up in the ballot is a pretty
silly solution, because say I felt that MMPOpt should be listed first, but
someone else felt that tCondorcet//Approval should be listed first.? Being
able to move one's favorite to 1st place doesn't avoid the question of how
the alternatives should be ordered. That should be obvious, and must be
obvious to most everyone.
3. It's James' poll, and James' ballot. It's far from obvious that I have a
right to change James' ballot without bring the matter up with James. Hey,
guess what, that's what I was doing, when I suggested the improvements.
4. I also said that there were too many alternatives in the poll, making it
more difficult to vote, causing people to neglect alternatives far down the
ballot, and reducing the turnout.
So, does Abd ul think that I should reduct the number of alternatives on
James' ballot, rather than "whine" that it would be better to not have so
many?
5. It's a bit bizarre to encounter someone who thinks that it's whiny to
suggest a bestter way that something could be done. Abd ul's ignorant and
backward reaction to a suggestion for improvement probably explains why
there are still countries with legal systems so badly in need of reform.
Countries, for instance, where the legal system calls for stoning to death
women whose only crime was to be a rape victim. Abd ul wouldn't object to
that.
(Having said that, I emphasize that the U.S. isn't morally in a postion to
intervene anywhere. That should only be done by a more democratic U.N.)
Of course we all on EM welcome newcomers. And that includes newcomers who
bring with them and express strong opinions that they already have. But
there will sometimes be an arrogant newbie like Abd ul, who needs to do more
listening and less asserting.
Mike Ossipoff
_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee®
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
----
Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
