On 10/3/11 4:54 PM, Brian Olson wrote:
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/
Brian, i have posted much the same sentiments on August 22 and August
4. i really don't see why so much energy goes into promoting the
approval ballot over the ranked-choice ballot as a reform of FPTP.
--
r b-j [email protected]
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
