What about a meta election?

[Mike Ositoff]

On Fri, 2 Oct 1998, Charles Fiterman wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> There are various things we use to judge election methods. They are often
> mutually
> 
> exclusive or at least pull in different ways. A system that picks the
> most popular
> 
> candidate and a system that excludes the most unpopular candidate will
> give very different answers.
> 
> 
> Much of our disagreement comes from not agreeing on what we are trying to
> achieve.
> 
> This suggests a meta election in which various system goals are voted on
> and ranked. Ideally the meta election would be a web site and voted on by
> more than the people in our group.

EM debated method standards for a while, before voting on our
recommendation to ER. At that time there was pretty good agreement.
Recent experience with Don, Blake, & Bart doesn't justify much
optimism about such a public discussion. That's why I recommend
against rank-balloting as a public proposal.

> 
> 
> Once we know what we are trying to achieve and in what order of priority
> these discussions will make more sense.

But we already know the different standards of Don, Blake, me
& some others. There's no way to resolve wholly different standards,
since there's no other standard by which to compare them.


I'd better send this now while I still can. May later reply
to the rest.

Mike


> 
> 
> I will start with the goals I think are important and brief explanations
> I hope the list will be added to.
> 
> 
> Honesty. 
> 
> <paraindent><param>left</param>Some things are fraud magnets like slow
> counts, assisted votes, absentee votes and written votes, they should be
> excluded where possible. 
> 
> </paraindent>
> 
> Secrecy.
> 
> <paraindent><param>left</param>People are entitled to secret ballot. You
> can't stop people from buying votes but you can prevent them from knowing
> if they got what they paid for. Further communities may be similarly
> entitled. Communities losing garbage pickup because they voted the wrong
> way in a mayoral election is far too common. Written ballots violate
> secrecy because people have distinctive handwriting even for numbers.
> 
> </paraindent>
> 
> Simplicity.
> 
> <paraindent><param>left</param>People have difficulty understanding even
> the simplest systems. There are genuine language barriers in most
> communities. This is another reason to object to written votes. There are
> people who have difficulty operating even the simplest devices either
> from lack of mechanical aptitude or physical handicap. 
> 
> 
> </paraindent>Openness.
> 
> <paraindent><param>left</param>Small parties and independents need easy
> access to the system. This includes complete reporting of how well they
> did no matter how badly that is.
> 
> 
> </paraindent>Convenience.
> 
> <paraindent><param>left</param>People should be able to get in and out
> quickly. Not only should it be possible for people to vote straight
> tickets but organizations like the League of Women Voters should be able
> to offer slates that are simply selections of candidates. Votes for these
> slates should be tabulated and reported on giving such organizations a
> power base based on something other than their own posturing. 
> 
> 
> </paraindent>Pervasiveness.
> 
> <paraindent><param>left</param>In England people vote for parliament and
> city elections. In America typical ballots may be for twenty offices. The
> more elective offices the more democratic the system. The problem is that
> people will often vote without knowing a thing about candidates other
> than their names which promotes ethnic voting. We have candidates
> changing their names to something Irish for this reason. Slates allow
> lots of educated choices.
> 
> </paraindent>
> 
> Decisiveness.
> 
> <paraindent><param>left</param>Situations where nobody wins and elections
> must be held again or run off elections must be held should be avoided.
> The system has to work. The system can't just break down and refuse to
> chose or to delay that choice arbitrarily. If the vote counts aren't in
> by midnight something is badly wrong and an investigation should be
> mandatory.
> 
> </paraindent><paraindent><param>left</param>
> 
> </paraindent>Participation.
> 
> <paraindent><param>left</param>People should be encouraged to vote but
> never at gun point. One way to do this is by having approval elections
> where non voters are counted as voting  for everyone. Voting against
> everyone is as easy as handing in a blank ballot.
> 
> </paraindent>
> 
> Accuracy.
> 
> <paraindent><param>left</param>Elections are often won by a single vote.
> Procedures must be accurate and books must balance several ways.
> 
> 
> </paraindent>The most unpopular candidates lose.
> 
> <paraindent><param>left</param>As was pointed out most people vote
> against someone rather than for someone. Preference should be given to
> systems that make hated candidates lose over systems that make loved
> candidates win.
> 
> 
> </paraindent>The most acceptable candidates win.
> 
> <paraindent><param>left</param>Candidates who are acceptable to
> majorities can actually run things.
> 
> 
> </paraindent>
> 
> <color><param>8080,0000,0000</param>
> 
> Charles Fiterman		  Geodesic Systems
> 
> 414 North Orleans Suite 410	  Phone 312 832 1221 x223
> 
> Chicago IL 60610-4418           FAX   312 832 1230
> 
> 				  http://www.geodesic.com
> 
> 
> </color>As the complexity of a system increases our ability to make
> 
> precise and yet significant statements about its behavior
> 
> diminishes until a threshold is reached beyond which precision
> 
> and significance or relevance become almost mutually exclusive
> 
> characteristics. -- Lofti Zadeh
> 
>