Party List P.S.

[Saari at aol.com]

In a message dated 98-07-27 04:04:21 EDT, you write:

>Candidates can withdraw any time a result is announced, and so
>the process of withdrawals & new count is repeated till no one
>else wants to withdraw.

Of course, this method has at least three obvious flaws.  One, for an extended
period of time after the election it is indeterminate who the winner is.

Two, this method won't work when candidates are things/proposals, not people.

Three, a losing candidate who either withdraws or does not withdraw is now in
a position to directly influence the outcome.  Issues of corruption and
bribery aside, clearly the outcome is now a consequence not merely of the
wishes of the voters but is also being manipulated by the candidates
themselves.  A flaky or unpredictable result indicates a flaky election
system.  In a good system the outcome is completely or primarily a reflection
of the feelings of the voters WITHOUT the opportunity of direct manipulation
of the outcome by certain individual participants.

Proponents of ranked voting (first, second, third, etc.) offer us a variety of
"scoring systems" but seem unable to find a single scoring system that is not
obviously flawed.  (And Arrow has essentially proven that they will never find
such an ideal scoring system based on ranked voting.)  In my book this
indicates that a different approach is required.  
One such approach involves discarding historical dogma such as "majority
rule", "ranked voting" or the simplistic "one man, one vote" and instead asks:
What is a method of voting which allows for full freedom of expression?  What
is a method of scoring such votes that does not create instant paradoxes or
contradictions?  And can such a voting/scoring system be devised that does not
create incentives to lie or exaggerate?

Some people on this list believe that the above goals are impossible to
achieve, and prefer instead to stick blindly to the old methods even though
they do not produce satisfactory results in all cases.  Perhaps a single ideal
method is impossible to achieve, but personally I think it can be done.

Mike Saari