[EM] why 0-99 in range voting

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 02:51 PM 11/22/2006, RLSuter at aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 11/22/06 12:11:20 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>abd at lomaxdesign.com writes:
>
><< In meetings, voting on multiple-answer questions is rare. >>
>
>Yes, but why? Because very, very few people -- probably
>less than 1% of U.S. citizens, are familiar with voting
>methods that can handle such questions in satisfactory
>ways.

This is actually nonsense. While, certainly, there are better methods 
of dealing with multiple-choices than the naive preference method we 
call plurality, none of these methods even approach what deliberative 
process can do.

>  They are rarely even mentioned in books about how
>to conduct meetings, and when they are mentioned, they
>are neither mentioned prominently nor described at all
>adequately.

This is true. But why? *Because those books are dealing with 
deliberative process. Election methods solve a problem that, 
generally, the meetings don't have.*

Yes, absolutely, Roberts Rules of Order, the most recent edition, 
still does not go satisfactorily into election methods, because the 
vast bulk of business done by meetings does not use election methods 
at all. When Congress elects a Speaker, it is all negotiated in 
advance, those negotiations are a form of deliberative process. The 
vote is merely a ratification of that. Advanced voting methods are 
unnecessary when deliberative process is available. *Nobody* who is 
experienced with deliberative process would give it up for a mere 
polling method. No matter how good.

Polling methods measure the state of the electorate at one point in 
time. Deliberative process *creates* that state.

>  So of course such voting has been rare. But
>it could someday become very common, especially since
>one of the best methods, approval voting, is also very easy
>to use.

Yes, and I've seen it used to great effect. But not actually as a 
final vote, rather as a poll. Then the final vote was taken, 
ratifying the decision that became apparent from the approval poll.

Approval is quite good. But it still does not take the place of 
deliberative process.

>  Widespread knowledge of this simple fact could
>transform the way meetings of all kinds are carried out --
>from informal meetings of a few people to large formal
>meetings such as political conventions, annual meetings
>of large membership organizations, and sessions of
>Congress and state legislatures.

Not too likely. Approval Voting is an improvement, no doubt about it, 
and it is an oversight that Robert's Rules do not discuss more 
sophisticated election methods. But the reason for this oversight is 
that elections are a detail to Robert's Rules, not the core. Were 
elections central to RR, the oversight would have been corrected long ago.