Blake Cretney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
R> On Mon, 6 Aug 2001 12:26:25 -0700 (PDT)
> Forest Simmons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > An ordinary Approval ballot has important relevant information
> > that cannot be deduced from a preference ballot.
> >
> > Although a preference ballot may have a greater quantity of
> > information, the Approval ballot has the most relevant information
> > for consent of the governed: i.e. which candidates could the voter
> > willingly give consent to.
>
> I'm not even sure that that it is a meaningful statement.
>
> It makes sense to say that I consent to be governed by A, if the
> alternative is B. That is, I prefer A to B. But then I might consent
> to B if the alternative is C. You seem to suggest that it is
> meaningful to say that I consent to A, independent of my other
> options.
Given four candidates for President: Al Gore, Pat Buchanan, Yog
Shuggoth, or Cthulhu.
If my friend Barb and I were given plurality ballots, Our ballots would
probably look like so:
Buddha Barb
[Y] Al Gore [Y]
[ ] Pat Buchanan [ ]
[ ] Yog Shuggoth [ ]
[ ] Cthulhu [ ]
If we were given ranked ballots, we'd end up with
[1] Al Gore [1]
[3] Pat Buchanan [2]
[2] Yog Shuggoth [3]
[4] Cthulhu [4]
If we were given approval ballots, we'd get
[Y] Al Gore [N]
[N] Pat Buchanan [N]
[N] Yog Shuggoth [N]
[N] Cthulhu [N]
Only on the approval ballot does Barb get to indicate that she doesn't
consent to be governed by Al Gore.
>
> ---
> Blake Cretney
