> Subject: [EM] Approval and Condorcet > > There's been a lot of back-and-forth over which is better. As an Approval > supporter myself, but one who doesn't agree with a lot of the pro-approval > arguments that have been made, I'd like to state my own position - once. I > won't respond in this thread because I hope the whole debate dies out soon.
Yes, no one is trying to prevent the Condorcetists from proposing Condorcet for enactment somewhere. They admit, however, that it would have to be just municipal, at least at first. I don't believe in wasting any time trying to convince them not to. 1. Public (other than EM) criticism of Approval by Condorcetists, or of Condorcet by Approvalists would be counterproductive. Remember the 3 Stooges trying to get through a door. 2. Arguing about which is better is a waste of time that could be better used by actually introducing the public to the method that you recommend. > > Given that reasonable people can take either side of this debate, what's the > point of arguing? Approval vs Condorcet is a waste of time. I've been discussing Approval's strategies, properties, advantages, and predicted results. Discussing such matters is worthwhile. Likewise, Condorcetists can discuss its advantages, properties and (largely unknown) strategies. Hopefully they can disagree without becoming angry. I have no use for long debates about which method is better. That's what regrettably characterizes EM. It's why I said that EM is nothing but a debate-club. One difference between me and our Condorcetists is that I'm only interested in societal results, not the debate-club game. > > It's only productive insofar as it helps us unite our activism. Of course it doesn't. As I said, it's a waste of time that detracts from efforts toward practical results. Bruce's attempted argument doesn't surprise me at all. Such attempts are inevitable. The tobacco, meat, and dairy industries have no trouble finding academics and other authorities whom they can pay to say things that favor those industries. On any subject with important consequences, where there is a lot of money involved, paying for favorable support will be a good strategy, and it will be used, and there will always be academics and other authorities willing to do as they're hired. In the case of someone trying to say that Plurality is better than Approval, the arguments will necessarily be ridiculous and desperate. But without Plurality, a big and valuable (to its beneficiaries) scam would fall apart. So those arguments have to be attempted nevertheless, and we can expect to hear more of them. Bruce is just starting a little early. But I've run across some journal articles making similar claims, none of which would stand up in a public discussion in which both sides are heard from. But look it this way: Bruce's attempt shows that this matter is important. Desperate attempts to argue for Plurality against Approval show you that someone is worried about what Approvals' greater freedom would so, and that someone is acknowledging the importance, for them, of Plurality's forced falsification. Someone doesn't like freedom. But we already knew that. We're been told that the terrorists hate freedom. Well, it would seem that some Plurality-defenders do too, judging by the desperate lengths to which they go in order to oppose voter freedom. > Bonus factious argument: Is there an amoeba's worth of distance between > Democrats and Republicans? > But it's just crazy to say that they're the same By the way, how is Kerry's former running mate doing in his corruption trial? The Democrats have to throw the public a crumb once and while, in order to be able to claim differentness. But, for the most part, the difference is only rhetorical. A writer in _The Progressive_ pointed out that the Democrats are progressive in their campaigns, and then become Republican when in office. He explained that by pointing out that the Democrats get their votes from one segment of the population, but get their money and instructions from another (much smaller) segment of the population--the same one from which the Republicans get their money and instructions. It's the familiar old "Good Cop/Bad Cop" routine. Are the Democrats and Republicans always exactly the same? No, because the Democrats need to throw the occasional crumb. No, because the Democrats need to sound like progressives in their campaigns and their speeches. No, because they have opposite rolls to act, in the Good Cop/Bad Cop scam. But the those "differences" are rhetorical and theatrical only. There are no significant merit differences or moral-level differences. Look up Jim Hightower's account of Al Gore in East Liverpool, Ohio, if you want a good example. Not that there aren't innumerable good examples around you on a daily basis. >; in > fact, objective measures of voting records show that the gap is wider now than > any time in the last 100 years. I'd ask what evidence there is for that "wide" difference, but I won't press you on the matter, because, on such matters either you faithfully believe your tv or you don't, and discussion doesn't have any effect. Never contradict a man's tv. I suggest that, when, due to the support and preferences finally revealed by the more free expression in Approval, the public will hear about other platforms, policies and proposals, and will finally have something to compare the Republocrats to, a larger context that will show that the Republocrats are indeed virtually the same, aside from their rhetorical and theatrical differences in their roles. > You just can't debate that, there's many ways to > prove it. It's one thing to say that you can prove it. It's another thing to prove it. >US democracy is indeed very sick, but hyperbole discredits only the > person who can't abandon it. It isn't hyperbole. The "two choices" differ only rhetorically and theatrically. A crumb now and then. Good-cop vs bad-cop roles. If you want to claim that the Republicans and Democrats are significantly different from eachother, then you need to tell in what significant way you think that they're different, in terms of merit, honesty, moral level, etc. Otherwise you're just "handwaving". Mike Ossipoff ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
