=/ If you have a million voters, one of them who likes the lesser evil but prefers the better candidate will bullet vote the better candidate. /= – above
Of course, likewise =/ If you have a million voters, one of them who likes the lesser evil but does not prefer the better candidate will bullet vote for the lesser evil candidate. /= – me, just now
You must bear in mind that I do not think elections are actually contests between ‘better’ candidates and ‘lesser evil’ candidates. You may recall I said:
=/ My ‘criteria’ seem mostly unique around here. I absolutely reject computer voting and demand hand counted paper ballots. I believe elections are primarily contests between aristocracy and commonalty – not primarily between the candidates, whom I see as essentially ‘pawns’. I believe that, in order to defeat the aristocrats, voters must vote strategically. (How can dishonesty even exist in a private voting booth, where no force or fraud is possible?)
/= – [LINK]
So I say there are not ‘contests’ between ‘better’ and ‘lesser evil’ candidates, but instead there are ‘contests’ between ‘significantly independent’ and ‘aristocracy fronted’ (basically aristocracy controlled) candidates. For example, the year presidential election 2000 (at least putatively) featured Ralph Nader as the significantly independent, and Al Gore as the aristocracy fronted candidate. Of course ‘in the end’ Al Gore voted for the resolution giving Bush authorization to use force against Iraq (and as they say, the rest is history).
If I had had a simple score ballot in 2000, I would have given Nader 10 and Gore (maybe) 8 votes. I would not be able to do that with an approval ballot.
Remember, any aristocracy fronted candidate will always have vastly more campaign funding than any significantly independent one. And this means that the former will have far better publicity in the corporate mass media. And the aristocrats, by definition, have lots of money, so they can easily front two, three, or ten distinct evil (by degrees) parties.
Use of the strategic hedge strategy presumably would not involve granting score votes of less than about 7. So it would be better to just omit scores of 6 and below on the ballots, and just enable voters to grant 7, 8, 9, or 10 votes, plus (explicit) abstention. Such ballots would be easier to hand count, obviously. But I suspect the ballots would (at least initially) need to enable the granting of 1 through 10 votes, simply because the public would probably not immediately perceive the logic of omitting the lower score votes.