I know that Approval is technically better than a lot of things, and I think it's better than IRV, but I want to argue that it's not good enough and we shouldn't aim low or advocate it too strongly.
I've always been personally unsatisfied with the prospect of filling out an Approval ballot. Sure I can say that either Al Gore or Ralph Nader would be fine choices for President, but I don't get to say which one I like better. I think this psychological aspect is important. In my mind it might drive me to misjudge my proper approval threshold, and I think I'd be likely to approve too few candidates and tend toward pick-one. I also today see Approval as fitting the pattern of premature compromise in politics. Afraid that we might not be able to get the awesome thing, we start off only trying for the mediocre thing. We could have real universal healthcare or Obama-Romney-care. We could try for a budget that makes sense, or we could have a budget half full of cruft and with tax tweaks that make no sense because someone whined for it. If we're going to do this, we should do it right. Go all the way. Go for the best thing possible. Isn't that one thing that frustrates us so much with the IRV advocates? They recognize that election method reform is important, but then they go all-in on a mediocre reform. Anyway, that's my random afternoon strategy opinion, I could be wrong. Brian Olson http://bolson.org/ ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
