>The reason why Mike Ossipoff defines "sincerity" the
>way he defines it is: He wants to be able to claim that
>it doesn't make any sense to vote "insincerely" under

>Approval Voting

. Therefore he defines "sincerity" in

>such a way that even bullet voting is a "sincere"
>voting behaviour under Approval Voting.
>
>Therefore you should ask yourself: "Is bullet voting
>a sincere voting behaviour?" And if your answer is "No!"

Some of us here have agreed that there's nothing insincere about not voting a

sincere preference. "Which do you prefer, chocolate or vanilla?" "I won't answer that."

That isn't an insincere answer. The person is merely refusing to make a statement.

Insincerity would be if he said he prefers chocolate when really he prefers vanilla.

 

So that's one reason why, in Approval, voting for Gore & Nader, and not voting one's

preference between them , isn't insincere. But, in any case, even if you, Markus, believe

that it's insincere to decline to express a sincere preference, then even you must not

believe that it's insincere when it's unavoidable. That's why my initial sincerity definition

was worded: "...or leave unvoted a sincere preference which the balloting system in use

would have allowed him to vote in addition to the preferences that he actually voted."

 

I was in a hurry when I replied to this before. When applied to Approval, my

initial definition of sincerity means the same thing as that which Brams & Fishburn

apply to Approval. That's what I meant to say before.

 

Mike Ossipoff

 



Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

Reply via email to