[EM] Candidate Proxy Methods (fwd)

[Forest Simmons]

I would like to point out that the class of methods outlined below works
just as well for multiwinner races as single seat elections.

In either case the voters submit lone mark ballots, designating the
candidate whose judgment they trust the most as proxy in the Election
Completion Convention.

If there are n seats to be filled, and there is a subset of n candidates
each of which is proxy for more than 1/(n+1) of the voters, then those
candidates fill the n seats.

Otherwise, an appropriate (proportional, if n>1 ) version of Condorcet or
Approval, or some other nice method is used as the Election Completion
Procedure.

On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, Forest Simmons wrote:

> 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
>
>

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