[EM] MultiGroup voting method

[Juho]

On Apr 7, 2007, at 8:01 , Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

> Consider this: if you have a system designed for one vote, what do  
> you do if the voter marks more than one? Typically, it will be  
> considered an error and the vote is discarded.

Note that depending on the style of ballots the risk (and  
opportunity) of voting several candidates may not exist. See e.g.  
http://www.vaalit.fi/17098.htm and http://www.vaalit.fi/35412.htm.

It is easier to arrange the option to vote for multiple candidates in  
single-winner elections (e.g. Approval) than in multi-winner  
elections. I don't have any favourites at the moment on how  
MultiGroup could be enhanced in this direction. Asset style vote  
splitting is one option but it may add more complexity than it brings  
benefits (at least if the ballots are as described above).

> Once you are going to consider having overlapping districts, i.e.,  
> there can be more than one representative who represents a  
> particular geographic location, with some representing the entire  
> state, my question remains. Why be more complicated?

My default setting comes from the multi-party tradition where it is  
typical that regions are quite large and several candidates are  
elected from each of them (PR). The MultiGroup method makes it  
possible for some candidates to indicate that they represent e.g. the  
western section of the region, or that they represent the western  
section of region B and eastern section of region A.

One interesting scenario would be to allow any candidate to collect  
his/her votes from area of his/her preference as long its size (in  
number of citizens/voters) stays within agreed limits. The basic  
assumption here is that the society wants to force proportional  
regional representation and therefore no candidate is allowed to  
collect votes fro the whole country. MultiGroup could be used to  
relax the fixed (and possibly too rigid) region borders. Candidates  
representing "border areas" could also get a natural base (for them)  
of citizens to represent. In addition to this kind of mandatory  
regional representation rules also smaller voluntary regions/groups  
could be used.

> Complex reforms are pretty unlikely to be implemented. I don't  
> think that the citation of "tradition" as a difference makes sense.  
> Neither of these is traditional.

For an open list system the delta to MultiGroup is just to add some  
attributes in the candidate list after each candidate name and  
enhance the counting rules a bit to cover this. The structure of the  
groups (e.g. parties, regions and their relationship) could deviate  
only a little from what the grouping has been before.

> If we really want to go outside of *political* tradition, we could  
> go to delegable proxy (though this, in fact, simply brings in long- 
> standing tradition in corporate governance); Asset, as I've been  
> describing it here, remains with a peer legislature.

I have no particular need to step out of the existing traditions of  
any country/organisation/society. In some cases radical changes may  
be needed to improve the system, but in other cases small  
enhancements could make the difference and put the evolution in a  
constructive/positive track.

> I will also note that I did look over Juho's proposal, and, beyond  
> seeing similarities to Asset, I didn't understand how it works.  
> That should be taken as a flaw. (Certainly how it works may have  
> been explained, but that I didn't see it readily means that it has  
> not been explained in a way to make it easy to follow. Part of the  
> problem could be the complexity.)

I had one example but I admit that it was not very detailed and I  
used a lot of abstraction, not fixing the s function, the criteria  
for "optimal outcome" and the calculation process to be used.

This mail is already getting long, but I give one additional short  
description of how the calculation could be done.

Each voter votes one candidate. Each candidate may belong to various  
groups. Each group will be guaranteed a proportional share of the  
seats (on could use e.g. largest reminder as the criterion). Check  
all possible outcomes of the election (this is a laborious task but  
the idea is simple). The outcome that implements the proportionality  
best for all groups and candidates will be selected as the final  
outcome (best = largest deviation compared first, then next in case  
of a tie etc.).

I think this is quite simple, with the exception of the computational  
complexity of checking all the possible outcomes (=> some heuristic  
approximate algorithm can be used to fix that).

>> Another existing stream with connections to multiple interests is the
>> possibility to give proxies to different persons on different topics.
>
> What does this have to do with Multigroup?

No tight connection. Just that it addresses the question of how to  
better address multiple topics like use of nuclear power, education  
and employment within one election method/system.

> The bills before a legislature are generally not "topics." There is  
> not one legislature for, say, business law, and another for criminal.

The vanilla version of MultiGroup doesn't address this problem. Of  
course proxies and "different proxies on different topics" could be  
used to elect different legislators settings for different areas is  
an option also in MultiGroup (maybe practical, maybe not).

>> 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's not "further." That's what I proposed and describe, and what  
> I described went a little further.

Ok, sorry, I thought you limited the interest groups to the (U.S.  
style) states and did not allow federal level support to be  
collected. One very key property of MultiGroup is to be able to  
support "cross anything" groups (if the society so wants).

> If the system doesn't *require* formal groups, and Asset does not,  
> it fully "allows" them.

Ok, STV and Asset Voting could be used e.g. so that the candidate  
lists clearly present the candidates as belonging to parties. Voters  
are then free to either support candidates of one party or make some  
other choices.

> To apply the terminology of "imposed system," you would look at the  
> election methods and procedures. Currently, political parties in  
> the U.S. typically own the ballot. Yes, you can get on the ballot  
> as an independent, but it can be an onerous process.

The U.S. system is one very special example. I see it as a two-party  
system. You could say that it fails to elect anyone outside the two  
parties, or you could say that since the system is (intentionally  
planned to be) a two-party system it is not even supposed to elect  
anyone outside the two parties.

Also the latter viewpoint has some interesting justification behind  
it. One could say that in a two-party system the intention is to seek  
the median opinion of the voters, and the opinions of the two parties  
are expected to change so that the borderline between them always  
moves towards the median opinion when the median opinion changes.

I leave it to the U.S. citizens to decide if they want the system to  
be changed to a multi-party system or if they want to continue using  
(and enhance as needed) the current two-party system. (Also  
intermediate forms are possible, like allowing presidential elections  
to sometimes pick a candidate outside of the two major parties - but  
that is maybe a separate topic for discussion.)

> it is an imposed system that the party names are on the ballot at all

That could also be called "information" (at lest in MultiGroup in  
multi-party countries). The act that the two major parties of a two- 
party system dominate e.g. the candidate nomination process may be a  
source of irritation though (and arguably even a factor that limits  
the responsiveness of the political system).

> If there is some structure for allocating votes, something, perhaps  
> that Juho is designing now, that's a "top-down, imposed system." I  
> mean that it is not created from the bottom, contrasted with how  
> Asset creates seats or delegable proxy selects top-level proxies.

One idea behind MultiGoup is to soften the monolithic party model by  
allowing them to show different flavours and colours within them. In  
principle also political parties (especially in dynamic multi-party  
systems where parties come and go) should be seen as organisations  
that are created bottom-up by citizens to represent them and their  
viewpoints/ideologies/targets. Associating candidates and parties  
formally on the candidate list is maybe not that different from use  
of informal associations between candidates and parties (I'm assuming  
that parties or similar groupings will exist in any case in "country  
size" political systems).

>> in
>> MultiParty candidates declare their affiliations/preferences/policy
>> before the election,
>
> Is that a difference? Can't candidates do that in Asset? Are  
> candidates *required* to do this in Multiparty?

Voluntary declaration of links to parties is possible in Asset  
Voting. Declarations are also fully voluntary in MultiGroup. The  
candidates may or may not belong to existing parties. (The society  
may however set some limitations on who is accepted as a candidate  
(one may e.g. need some fixed number of signatures of supporters  
before one is accepted on the formal candidate list) and if each  
candidate has to represent some limited region.)

One difference is that in MultiGroup the declared associations to  
different groups are used in determining which candidates will be  
(proportionally!) elected.

> So instead of deciding based on platforms -- which are simply  
> promises and, often, platitudes, designed to create an appearance  
> of "this is what we want" for voters -- I vastly prefer to see  
> representation based on trust. Personal trust. There is no  
> substitute for it except the deception, hypocrisy, and pretense  
> that passes for politics today. Even the best and most trustworthy  
> candidates are forced to play the game.

Note that to some extent grass always looks greener at the other side  
of the fence. Current political systems may not work optimally. But  
also future and alternative political systems are subject to  
corruption. Continuous efforts are needed to keep the system working.  
Sometimes it is better to change an old system to a new one, but  
often it is also enough just to remove whatever rotten apples there  
are and find ways how to avoid such problems to emerge repeatedly in  
the future.

I certainly don't believe that the current models of democracy are  
optimal and final but I want to see good justifications for each step  
we take. This is to avoid steps in wrong directions. There have been  
also failures among the new social trials of different countries.

> Proxy

Yes, there are many potential uses for proxies.

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