I notice thate I'm coming across as critical or argumentative or angry, when I tell
Richard to feel free to not reply. It's not that at all. When I said that it would be fine with me if the initial claim remained unsupported, I meant only that. And I genuinely wanted to assure Richard that I wasn't harrassing him for a justification or an answer. So there was a misunderstanding in which I was perceived to be argumentative. I'm posting now because I probably sounded the same way today. I merely meant that I'm not calling for, insisting on, demanding, or expecting a reply. Richard himself has suggested that the discussion is completed. It is. That's because, now, he _has_ posted a message explaining why he believes what he'd initially said (about Approval being less enactable). That explanation was all that I'd asked for. (I'm not saying that I agree with it). So we've both had our say on the matter, and I agree that there's no need for more discussion of the matter. (Well, maybe just a little, in this posting). Anyway, if I seemed argumentative or angry, I wasn't actually. I was just saying that I agree that that exchange of opinions and their justifications is completed. But I feel that maybe a little clarification about Richard's justification and my answer to it is in order: Richard made two arguments: 1. He said that Approval will be perceived as violating one-person-one-vote (1p1v). Answer: I told how it is easily shown that Approval doesn't violate 1p1v. Richard said that people won't understand that. At that point, we've reached the basis of the disagreement. If anyone thinks that people won't understand my arguments for why Approval doesn't violate 1p1v, then I invite them to look at those arguments in my recent postings. 2. He said that, by the time Congress is ready to do what it takes to enact a better voting system, the public will be so used to locally-enacted voting reform that they'll be fully conversant with Condorcet, Kemmeny, or whatever other (probably rank) method Richard had in mind. For that reason, he said, Approval's transparently obvious nature, as an improvement, and only an improvement, on Plurality won't be needed, because the voters wil, by then, be so qualified on the subject of voting systems. Answer: But what is it that will make Congress ready to do what it takes to enact a voting reform? Widespread, insistent public demand, that's what. But I've told about how all sorts of pundits, university authorities, etc. will obvuscate the matter for the public. And remember that they won't even have to convince people that the proposed method will make things worse. They need only say that, with such a complicated method, there could be unforseen consequences. A little uncertaintly is all they need. "This will need a lot more study." is what we'll hear. And, with that doubt, and with that perceived need for a lot more study, does Richard really think that the public will be demanding that Congress enact rank balloting for the presidency? Or that they'll insist that it be enacted in a U.S. state? So, my answer is that, without the public already being sure that the proposed method is genuinely and surely an improvement, and not a worsening, there will never be that public demand that we've spoken of. Now, if Condorcet, or some other rank method were adopted and used in states &/or municipalities, would that reassure people so that they might insist that Congress act? Sure. Two problems with that: a) The same influences that I spoke of above will just as surely prevent that local enactment. Pundits, news commentators, editorial-writers, magazine authors, reporters, academic authorities will have people doubting whether the method will only be a worsening. It will "need much more study". It won't happen. b) But even if it could, the municipal-first route, of course is a particularly long-time one. Anyway, I mean no animosity or argumentativeness. Richard gave his reasons, and I have answered them. We've both said what we intended to say, just as Richard himself said or implied. Richard and Jameson have done amazing work, in organizing the Declaration, and in contacting Democracy Chronicles. Additionally, Jameson has introduced us to several large-audience Internet forum discussions about Approval and how to fix the widespread low approval-rating of govt. Mike Ossipoff
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
