MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote: > > Blake continues: > > Maybe there are people who are so in awe of mathematics that when you > prove that a particular definition (of your own design) applies, they > feel that you have proven your point. If I define the "Great Method > Criterion" and prove that Ranked Pairs passes it, they will take it as > proven that Ranked Pairs is a great method. > > I reply: > > I use a number of criteria that aren't of my own design. But > I use some that are of my own design too. I never ask people > to value a criterion just because I wrote it. My criteria are > mostly lesser-of-2-evils criteria, and it doesn't take any > convincing for most people to accept the importance of the > lesser-of-2-evils problem. The relevance of my defensive > strategy criteria to the lesser-of-2-evils problem is so obvious > as to not require any argument.
> > The difference between your standard and mine, Blake, is that > mine is one that's shared by lots of people who express concern > about its violation. Lots of voters and reform advocates > express concern about the lesser-of-2-evils problem. It's recognized > to be the one big thing wrong with Plurality. The lesser-of-2-evils refers to a sense on the part of many voters that they aren't voting for someone they particularly like; they are only trying to keep someone they particularly dislike out of power. So the best they can hope for out of an election is a lesser evil. From this simple start, you derive various standards and criteria. To do this, you add your own assumptions and standards. So you are no longer simply responding to the voter's concern. There are other problems with your argument, though. Until plurality is replaced, most arguments are going to be directed against it, but that doesn't mean that its problems are the most important kind, as you imply. Just that it's problems currently effect more people. Gasoline-driven cars produce air pollution. Perhaps nuclear cars will produce fission leaks. People seem more concerned about cars producing air pollution than fission leaks, so I guess air pollution must be worse. But actually there's good reason to believe that reformers aren't primarily concerned with the lesser-of-2-evils problem. The biggest single-winner campaign is for IRV, and this is because reform advocates often become obsessed with quite different strategy problems than the lesser of 2 evils (as least as you understand it). They may be wrong, but it was you who invoked the ad populum argument. --- Blake Cretney
