Subj: [EM] <process> Brief replies
Date: Wed, Mar 6, 1996 3:50 AM EDT
[hidden email] wrote:
<Because I consider a multicandidate race a relative choice <anyway, it never
occurred to me to consider absolute <disapproval. Majority rule could have 2
<3a) Not electing someone to whom a majority prefers someone else
<3b) Not electing someone whom a majority disapprove <absolutely
< (though that's more difficult to define, and more difficult
< for the voter to judge)
Something similar with me. It was because of a lack of considering absolute
disapproval that I was earlier advocating Approval Voting over plain
However with Multiple Same Choices (equal to a multiple mixture of
Disapproval, Approval and Condorcet) every voter gets something (except
possibly/probably and critically a majority-of-all-voters (MOAV) winner).
I still don't object to a disapproval count or NOTB. They don't
seem subject to strategic abuse, and they don't seem to do any
harm to Condorcet's properties.
I've told why I don't consider them to be necessary, unless one
wants to make the election not elect anyone. And, as I said, with
the good selection that we'll have in single-winner elections, when
Condorcet's method is allowing people to vote sincerely, and
freeing candidates of the "spoiler problem", I don't believe there
will be any need for an election result that says "No-one".
But counting absolute disaproval, or using NOTB, doesn't seem to
do any harm, and so I don't object to it.
I objected to it on the grounds that the public could blame
single-winner reform, in general, or Condorcet's method, when
disapproval or NOTB resulted in no one getting elected. Certainly
it would have to be make very clear that those & Condorcet's method
are 2 completely independent things, and that Condorcet isn't to
blame if disaapproval or NOTB result in there being no winner.
Voters have a strong negative motivation, & a "reject them all"
feeling, and so they might really like disapproval or NOTB. But
we mustn't let Condorcet take flak for what they do.
I guess one objection to disapproval & NOTB would be that, combining
them with Condorcet, one would be proposing 2 things instead of 1,
which would provide more places to attack, more things for a voter
to disagree with. If someone hated the possibility of not electing
anyone, then he/she might reject the whole package, and we wouldn't
get Condorcet's method.
Still, having made that warning, I repeat that I don't oppose or
object to disapproval or NOTB.
I want to emphasize here that, though I've become exasperated
trying to answer Demorep's objections to plain Condorcet, it must
be admitted that his realization that Condorcet with disapproval
meets his standard that previously had caused him to advocate
Approval means that his current proposal is a rational one, and
not a bad one at all.
Also, his standard of disqualifying anyone absolutely disapproved
by a full majority is something on which 2 other people agree with
Demorep, and they propose the same or similar added features to
meet that standard. And, since disapproval & NOTB don't have
a bad effect, or not a serious one, Condorcet with disapproval or
NOTB could be consisidered a compromise, to meet both types of
majority rule standards, as well as lesser-of-2-evils, &
avoiding the need for defensive strategy.
It's ok, but as for choosing it to propose to the public, I would
merely, without opposing it, point to the possible
winnability & backlash disadvantages mentioned earlier in this
The only feature that I object to is the one that counts the
non-ranking of a candidate as a dispproval of that candidate.
As I said, short rankings are already known to be very common
in rank-balloting elections, and not ranking someone doesn't
mean that one is voting for that candidate to be disqualified.
Also, I'd like to add that Condorcet's method doesn't prevent
voters from voting as many candidates as they want to at any
rank position, including 1st place.
|Free forum by Nabble||Edit this page|