I've had yet another completely unfavorable reaction to Approval from a member of the public. Members of the public seem to universally oppose Approval.
And, in every instance, there's no such thing as explaining to them why Approval isnt as bad as they think it is.
For instance, in this most recent conversation, as in the previous ones, I pointed out that, in Approval, contrary to popular belief, everyone casts equally many votes. If you mark a candidate, thats a Yes vote. If you dont mark a candidate, thats a No vote. To put it numerically, for purposes of count, marking a candidate is a positive point assignment, and not marking a candidate is a negative point assignment. In spite of how it looks on the ballot, therefore, the voting is really symmetrical, with everyone giving every candidate a positive or negative point.
So, if there are 10 candidates, and I mark 6, and you mark 1, Im not having more voting power than you are! Were both voting on all the candidates.
It went in one ear and out the other. Every time, with every member of the public.
This time I pointed out to Jo-Ann (not her real name) that, even if you define a voting power that can differ among voters, defining it as your opportunity to improve your expectation by your vote,, and fairness calls for that opportunity to be the same for everyone, then it can be mathematically shown that 1-vote Plurality can be considerably more unfair, with considerably more unequal voting power, than Approval can.
When that didnt help, I wrote out the demonstration, and took her through it. Her answer? People dont like complication. So much for showing which method is more unfair.
I told her what Approvals big advantage is: We always hear that if you vote for Nader youre hurting Kerry (or Hillary?). Its the big reason why so many voters resent Nader from running. Apparently its unethical and selfish for an honest person to enter the race, if it will take votes away from a crooked sleaze. That problem is eliminated by Approval, because you can vote for Kerry, and still show support for Nader. That just elicited a repetition of her initial objections, as if all that Id said hadnt been said.
I then asked if RV seems as bad as Approval. At first she said no, but later she said that it has the same problem when used for choosing an officeholder, as opposed to just showing popularity.
I then asked her if rank-balloting has that problem--letting people indicate their first choice, and their 2nd choice, etc. She said maybe not, but theres no point in it, and that it wouldnt have helped in Florida, 2000.
I said that, in Florida 2000, if the Nader voters had ranked Nader first, and Kerry in 2nd place, theyd still be voting Kerry over Bush, and helping Kerry against Bush She replied that it doent make sense. This is America.!We have a right to elections that have a vote for only one person! Apparently I was perceived as trying to take away her American rights. (Not an exact quote, except for the This is America part, but probably close). So lets not have any of those un-American efforts to take away the good old American one-and-only vote for the best candidate? As I said, thats what Ive universally found when asking members of the public about Approval or other improved voting systems.
RV wasnt rejected as strongly as Approval. And rank-balloting maybe even less strongly--mostly its perceived as pointless and unnecessary. Since the best rank methods can offer more than Approval or RV, maybe rank methods are the best way to go.
Approval accepted by the public? Kiss it off. Mike Ossipoff
---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
