[EM] Candidate Proxy Methods (fwd)

[Forest Simmons]

Here's a message that I forwarded to a friend of mine who is a prominent
and influentual member of FAVOR (FairVoteORegon) the organization
promoting IRV here in Oregon:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 14:28:47 -0800 (PST)
From: Forest Simmons <fsimmons at pcc.edu>
To: Xander Patterson <xman at imagina.com>
Subject: Candidate Proxy Methods

Dear Xander,

I would like your feedback on the following minimal voting method reform
proposal:

The method is an example of a "Candidate Proxy" method.  If no candidate
gets a full majority of the votes, then each candidate represents his/her
supporters in an "Election Completion Convention" in which an "Election
Completion Procedure" is carried out by the candidates.

Since the candidates represent their supporters as proxies, the number of
supporters determines the number of ballots cast in the Election
Completion Procedure.  For example, a candidate representing 27 percent of
the voters casts 27 percent of the Election Completion Procedure ballots
in the Election Completion Convention.

Notice that during the Election Completion Convention the voters have true
Proportional Representation in its purest form.

In the year 2000 presidential election, after all of the votes were in
Nader could have bequeathed his votes to Gore in exchange for some
promises of reform.

[Although such promises (like all campaign promises)
would be non-binding, their violation would help reveal the true character
of the liar to the voting public, give Nader a chance to be heard, etc.]

Since the candidate that you vote for will be your proxy in this important
decision, you should vote for the candidate whose judgment you trust the
most.

As a reality check on the judgment of the candidates, they are required to
publicly rate or rank the other candidates before the voters vote, i.e.
before voters choose their proxies.

While there are many possible Election Completion Procedures, among the
best and easiest for the public to understand is the following:

Each candidate grades all of the candidates (including self) on a scale of
A to Z, where A is the best possible grade, and Z is the worst. Any grade
better than an N is considered passing, and any grade worse than an M is
considered failing.

As part of the reality check, these grades must be consistent with the
candidates' pre-election publicly posted ratings or rankings.  In other
words, if candidate A rates candidate B above candidate C in the
pre-election public disclosure, then on candidate A's ballot candidate C
cannot receive a better grade than candidate B.

This grade report is the candidate's ballot, and so it is replicated in
proportion to the number of supporters of the candidate, i.e in proportion
to the percentage of the electorate represented by the candidate.

The candidate who receives the greatest number of passing grades in this
Election Completion Procedure is the winner of the election.


What do you think?


Forest



----
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), 
please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em