First, a co-operation/defection problem example at the opposite extreme: Sincere preferences:
33: A>B 32: B>A 34: C Now, replying to Richard: Richard says: Instead of publishing my "rebuttal" as an article, here is what I suggest. Adrian, in his own words, can introduce Mike's article by saying that the article is about one of many voting methods [endquote] At no time did I say that Approval was the only votinlg method. Richard continues: and about one of many characteristics of voting methods (FBC). [endquote] My article mentioned that Approval doesn't give favorite-burial incentive, and tells why that's important, but the revised version, the one that was published, makes no mention of the name "FBC". Richard thinks that I should explain that there are other properties by which to evaluate and compare methods, but I didn't say or imply that there weren't. I recommend that anyone should feel free, when proposing or describing a method, to tell what desirable properties it has. ...as did I. Richard continues: Ideally I would hope that Mike recognizes that his article fails to describe Approval voting in a way that would be understood by most readers of Democracy Chronicles [endquote] Well, let's see...I suggested that the voter be allowed to give to each candidate a rating of "Approved" or "Unapproved", and that the candidate with the most "Approved" ratings wins. Which part of that does Richard have trouble with? Richard continues: And I think that using an example of people raising hands or saying "yes" makes it easy to understand, and encourages people to try using it. [endquote] I like the illustrtion of an Approval ballot, which Adrian included. That showing of an Approval ballot helps to clarify what Approval voting is like. Richard continues: I would think that Mike would want people to try it to see how simple it is, and to give people an opportunity to experience how it works better than plurality voting. [endquote] Of course. But I don't know if Democracy Chronicles is set up for that sort of interactive balloting. By the way, I did propose a poll at EM a few months ago, for that very purpose (not just for Approval, but for rank-balloting too). At EM, we've done a number of presidential polls, and at least two polls regarding voting systems. Most of them were proposed by me. Now that we're on the subject of polls: Richard keeps saying that, these days, he hears more in favor of CC than FBC. ...and he probably hears more advocacy of Condorcet (versions not usually specified) than of Approval. EM's constantly shifting participating-memberts mix will sometimes favor Condorcet, and sometimes Approval. Richard suggested a poll. As I've said, we had at least two polls on voting systems. Two that I know of. Maybe they were the only ones. In the first such poll, the winner was Smith//Condorcet, the best Condorcet version we knew of at the time. In 2nd place was Plain Condorcet, now more often referred to as "MinMax(wv). They won by every method we counted. That poll held fairly soon after I introduced the Condorcet(wv) family of voting systems. Condorcet(wv) has become the predominant and popular class or family of Condorcet versions, and inludes Markus Schultz's now popular CSSD/Beatpath version of Condorcet(wv). In our other voting systems poll, Approval won, by every method we counted. So, you see, a voting systems poll is just a snapshot of one momentary configuration of EM's constantly shifting active-poster mix. In all of our polls, presidential and on voting systems, Approval always chose the CW. Warren Smith has spoken of why that tends to be so. By the way, Richard, when you keep referring to the Condorcet's Criterion advocates heard from so much these days, would you, by any chance, be referring to Dave Ketchum and Robert Bristow? Forest Simpson isn't participating these days, but he was for a long time, and he is an Approvalist, though he discusses many interesting ideas about other methods too. Forest also likes MCA and MTA. He was the introducer of MCA, which led to MTA. Approval, MCA, and MTA meet FBC, but not Condorcet's Criterion. As recently as a few months ago there was an another Approvalist active on EM, but who is no longer participating. As I said--snapshots of a constantly shifting membership. Look at the credentialled signers list, of the Declaration. You'll find Approval well-represented. By the way, Richard, though your VoteFair is defined at your website, is there some reason why you don't want to post its definition to EM? Richard says: There is no need to mention the Condorcet criteria [criterion] , as long as Mike does not make any false claims about it [endquote] Richard is invited to specify a false claim that I've made about Condorcdt's Criterion. Richard says: , which I think that Adrian can now identify as opinions rather than mathematically supported facts. [endquote] Richard is invited to _specifically_ name a mathematically incorrect statement that I've made about Condorcet's Criterion. ...or a statement or opinion that I've made, which needs mathematical support that I've failed to provide upon request. (For one thing, I haven't heard any requests prior to this message). But it's pointless to ask Richard to specify what he means. Vagueness is his standard technique. Mike Ossipoff
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
