[EM] MultiGroup voting method

[Juho]

On Apr 6, 2007, at 19:17 , Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

> At 09:52 AM 4/6/2007, Juho wrote:
>> Here's one method for PR multi-winner elections. [...]
>>
>> Candidates (or parties) are free to form any kind groups. Some
>> typical groups are parties and regions. The groups are allowed to be
>> hierarchical and to overlap. Also mandatory groups can be covered
>> within the method (all candidates might e.g. be mandated to represent
>> one of the regions).
>
> Is Juho aware of the use of Asset Voting that I have proposed? It  
> seems far simpler and more flexible than what Juho has proposed,  
> with similar effect.

Yes I'm aware of Asset Voting. There are similarities but also lots  
of differences. Maybe the biggest differences come directly from the  
tradition. The MultiGroup method fine-tunes the traditional party and  
region system and (as I mentioned, at least in the vanilla version)  
the votes are very simple votes to one candidate. When compared to  
that, Asset Voting seeks totally new tracks.

Another existing stream with connections to multiple interests is the  
possibility to give proxies to different persons on different topics.

Asset Voting...
> A political party that was small and spread thin, but with enough  
> loyal voters, state-wide, to gain a quota of votes, would gain  
> representation state-wide. A party with even less support than  
> that, could cooperate with other similar groups to create a seat  
> that represents more than one party, presumably with similar  
> agendas or interests.

I tried to go also further, to allow even country wide small (roughly  
quota size, cross region, possibly cross party) groups to get one  
representative. That is, if such groups are allowed by the system  
(and by the parties if these candidates come from existing parties).  
(I mean that MultiGroup is basically just a calculation method that  
can support all this, but on the other hand can be used in many  
different, also limiting ways in different countries, within  
different parties etc.)

Asset Voting...
> It takes no complex, top-down, imposed system. All it takes is  
> allowing votes to amalgamate intelligently, i.e., under the  
> direction of a trusted candidate.

I wouldn't call political party strycture of a democratic political  
system an "imposed system". In many existing political systems there  
are characteristics that resemble that though. And the intention of  
MultiParty is to alleviate those. A "party-less bottom up" generation  
of the "leading class" and political groupings is another approach  
(with + and -).

> What Juho is trying to do is to automate a process, using fixed  
> rules, instead of allowing human intelligence, which is far more  
> flexible and which can deal with unanticipated contingencies, etc.,  
> to allocate votes and seats.

Also, to give more power directly to the voters, while maintaining an  
easy way to vote, easy understanding of what the candidates stand  
for, and with accountability.

> It wasn't clear to me how Juho's scheme really differs from Asset  
> Voting

I have the feeling that the differences may be more numerous than the  
similarities, so I don't really know which properties to comment.  
Right now the topmost thing in my mind is the difference that in  
MultiParty candidates declare their affiliations/preferences/policy  
before the election, for the voters to make their pick, while in  
Asset Voting the system is based on bottom up votes/trust and  
negotiation process that eventually leads to formation of the groupings.

Juho



		
___________________________________________________________ 
Try the all-new Yahoo! Mail. "The New Version is radically easier to use" – The Wall Street Journal 
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html