Approval video: minor suggestions

[Jameson Quinn]

I was talking with Andrew Jennings, because I still thought that the video would be edgier and more viral if Peach were the approval (and, implicitly, Condorcet) winner. After all, popular incumbents getting upset by spoilers is pretty far from being the worst problem with plurality. But I didn't want to harp on unconstructive criticisms, because the video's already done, and it's pretty good. And Andrew pointed out another issue: for the moment, we have a much better chance of getting approval passed through legislation than initiative, and that means that we don't want to scare incumbents too much.

So I thought about it some more, and I realized that even in the current configuration, the video could be improved by making the point that it will change how politics is done. I suggest the following slight additions:

~1:30: "... and they do. And approval voting accurately reflects Peach's support, so Blueberry knows she has to pay attention to Peach's voters or Peach could beat her someday." (possible animation of blueberry eyeing lime, lemon, chile, and kiwi who peer over peach's shoulders.)

~1:59: "Even losing candidates get an accurate reflection of support, and their fresh ideas get the attention they deserve." (possible animation of a generic plant sprout coming up beside peach)

The idea is that even when incumbents win, approval should improve the democratic debate. 

I hope that you could convince the video people to make this small addition. I know it would be too late for the l@d contest, but I think this would make a stronger, and more viral, case for approval voting. For instance, when recently posted to Reddit, this video got 16 upvotes - and 12 downvotes. I don't know what the downvoters were thinking, but if I didn't know about approval I can easily imagine myself saying "the last thing this country needs is another way for incumbents to win". This suggested change would at least suggest that approval could lead incumbents to lose, too.

I'm sure my wording could still be tweaked to be even better, but I think it's clear what I'm going for, so I'd love to hear other suggestions or comments before any actual changes are made.

Jameson

[Jameson Quinn]

2013/5/7 Jameson Quinn <jameso...@gmail.com>

"...or Peach could beat her someday"

Alternately: "...if she wants to keep winning"

[Leon Smith]

Yeah,  we definitely walk a fine line with respect to emphasizing the protection of incumbents from upstarts versus actually giving those upstarts a fair shake.    The truth is that Approval Voting does a little of both,  and hopefully reduce the often intense rivalry between the main parties and similarly-minded third parties.

I feel that a couple of our main points could have been emphasized a bit more clearly, but I think it's too early to tell what people's reaction really is.   It doesn't seem to have gone over as well as Aaron's typewriter picture,  but we'll see.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Center for Election Science" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to electionscien...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Clay Shentrup]

On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 10:58:35 PM UTC-7, Leon Smith wrote:

It doesn't seem to have gone over as well as Aaron's typewriter picture

??

[Jameson Quinn]

2013/5/7 Leon Smith <leon.p...@gmail.com>

Yeah,  we definitely walk a fine line with respect to emphasizing the protection of incumbents from upstarts versus actually giving those upstarts a fair shake.    The truth is that Approval Voting does a little of both,  and hopefully reduce the often intense rivalry between the main parties and similarly-minded third parties.

I understand that fine line. Personally, I'd have chosen to prioritize the "giving a fair shake" side of things. But I can see the counterargument, and anyway, with the video done now, that's water under the bridge.

My point is that, while it's not practical to change the winner in the video, it is possible by adding two short phrases — around 8 seconds of video, around 5% of the run time — to show that approval does "a little of both" rather than just being a way to protect incumbents. Obviously, the video house delivered what they promised. But given the amount that they were paid, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask them to add another 5%.

Clay: will you talk to the video people about making these suggested additions? That is, the following two phrases to be added:

so Blueberry knows that if she wants to keep winning she has to pay attention to Peach's voters

 and their fresh ideas get the attention they deserve.

Cheers,

Jameson