--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bart Ingles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ...
> Voter acceptability scale (sincere) > 100 70 0 > ------------------------------------------ > 26% A B C > 23% B AC > 51% C B A ... > 26% AB > 23% B > 51% BC While it's easy to get fixated on Approval's "failure" to elect the candidate with a majority of sincere first place votes, Approval does an admirable job of maximizing the utility of the electorate in this case. C is considered 0% acceptable by almost half the electorate, while every voter will be fairly satisfied with B. If we cast A as Stalin, B as Washington, and C as Hitler, do you still think Approval failed? Granted, that's a specious argument, but it does illustrate the degree to which 70% approval is significant. A more even-handed way to analyze it is to look at the actual utility of each candidate: Candidate A: 1*26% = .26 Candidate B: 1*23% + .7*(26%+51%) = .739 Candidate C: 1*51% = .51 And again, candidate B is clearly the winner that generates the most happiness for the electorate. That should be what counts. The fact that B finishes dead last in a plurality vote (and IRV for that matter) highlights the emphasis those methods place on first place votes; a misplaced emphasis in my opinion. A utility analysis unambiguously backs up Approval's selection of the compromise choice. As a final note, the "C B A" voters are not forced to insincerely rank their favorite candidate lower than another candidate, only even with their next choice. So their vote does not constitute a betrayal or even a strategic vote. It's a sincere vote, given the constraints of Approval Voting. -Adam Tarr atarr at purdue dot edu Adam Tarr, Ph.D. Student Purdue University School of Electrical and Computer Engineering [EMAIL PROTECTED] (765)743-7287
