On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Kathy Dopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can you imagine knowingly supporting a voting system where voters have > no idea how to rank their first choice candidate (first or last or in > between) in order to help their first choice candidate win?! > > I.e. ranking one's first choice candidate LAST, may help one's first > choice candidate win, whereas ranking one's first choice candidate > FIRST will not. Don't you think you are being a bit over dramatic, Kathy? Are you aware that in going to a doctor to treat an injury, you can get in a car accident and get injured some more? Why would anyone go to a doctor if doing so can actually make your health WORSE? Just because there is a non-zero chance of harm resulting from your choice does not mean that you should be paralyzed from making a decision. The potential harm (and good) needs to be balanced with the probability of the various outcomes. We do this sort of balancing every day, usually subconsciously, on just about every decision we make. By your logic, people should have "no idea" whether to do anything. I also think you are putting far too much emphasis on people's first choice candidate, as if all results other than the first choice candidate winning are equally bad. This way of thinking seems to be a common symptom of being accustomed to plurality and the two party system that results from it. In an election with many candidates, if you hurt your first choice candidate's chances, but you help your second choice beat your least favorite, is that really so bad? -rob
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
