On Tue, 12 Mar 2002, Rob Lanphier wrote: <snip>
> 1. We don't alienate those who should be our allies > 2. We don't panic....argue against IRV solely on merits (or lack thereof) > 3. We can live with the compromise we propose (Approval) > > It's this last point I'm not yet sure of, but I do plan to read further to > become convinced one way or another. Remember, Approval was the clear winner of last summer's contest for Best Public Proposal on the EM list :-) Now, about the transition from IRV to Condorcet versus transition from Approval to Condorcet: In my opinion, whatever (increased expressivity) improvement we may consider over Approval (whether a Condorcet method or some other method) should be adapted to some kind of CR ballot, preferrably Five Slot Grade Ballots. [If more resolution is truly essential for the method, then plus or minus options would bring up the resolution to 15.] IRV wouldn't be much (if any) better preparation for this transition than Approval. Another thought about transitions: if some elections were done by, say, Proxy ACMA, the voters could learn the ins and outs of ACMA by watching their proxies. After a while they might want to fill out ACMA ballots themselves, rather than just stand by and watch their proxies have all of the fun. [After the transition each ballot could have a proxie check box for those that continued to prefer letting their favorite act as their proxie.] Of course, the same goes for any other method more complicated than Approval that we might want to propose, eventually. [I assume that we don't need to do this for Approval itself.] Forest
