Chris said:
In a way Approval is worse. In my example, the five AB compromisers
might correctly believe that A has at least as good a chance of winning as B
and that C has the least chance to win. They don't need to be
convinced that their favourite isn't viable, just (given their abhorrence of
C) that C has some 'significant' chance of winning.
I reply:
If they vote for B when they think A is winnable, and C is least likely to
win, then they must like B about as much as C, and so theres nothing wrong
with B winning.
If, under those conditions, they vote for B, though they like B a lot less
than A, then that will disappoint me. Youre saying that it could happen,
but it seems to me that it probably wont.
Speaking for myself, as a Nader voter, I wouldnt vote for a Democrat in
Plurality or Approval. You dont vote for a completely unacceptable
candidate in Approval. Strategy forbids it if theres an acceptable
candidate in the race. Many, most, or all of those who now vote for Nader
consider the Democrats completely unacceptable. I certainly do. Then theres
the separate, non-strategic matter of principle and deservingness. Even if
Hillary and Giuliani were the only candidates in the race, that doesnt
change the fact that Hillary doesnt deserve a vote. She wouldnt get one
from me, even if it were just her and Giuliani.
People whod rather not vote Democrat are more principled than you might
think. Thats why they now vote for Nader even though were told that Nader
cant win. If you think that those Nader voters are going to start giving an
Approval vote to Hillary when we change to Approval, then you dont know
them.
On the other hand, the Nader-preferring, Democrat-voting LO2E progressives
will definitely give an Approval vote to Nader, in addition to the one that
they give to Hillary.
Chris continues:
In this scenario
if the method was FPP they would have voted for their sincere favourite A.
I reply:
You mean if they believe that A has as good a chance as B? That would be
nice, but I wouldnt count on it. Anyway, its irrelevant, because, as long
as we have Plurality here, that day will never come. Thats because, with
1-vote Plurality, if the media tell a gullible public that a certain two
parties are the only winnable ones, the two choices, then those two
parties, which could be _any_ two parties, will win from now on, at
Myerson-Weber equilibrium. The result (low vote total for Nader, much higher
vote total for Clinton) is consistent, and seems to confirm, the
misinformation from the media. So the Democrats and Republians keep winning
forever.
I wouldnt quite call that as good as Approval.
As I said, Approval will quickly home in on the voter median, and stay
there, because if Nader is outpolling the Republican, it will be clear that
Nader-preferrers have no need to vote for a Democrat lesser-evil. With
Approval, lesser-evils would be all washed-up.
Chris continued:
And likewise if it was IRV they would have voted sincerely
A>B.
I reply:
Has IRV delivered on its initial promise in Australia?
Mike Ossipoff
----
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
