[EM] Craig Carey and None of the Rest

[Donald E Davison]

Greetings list,

Craig Carey wrote: "If the voters are going to be allowed to reduce the
number of winners, then why can they only reduce the number of winners by
one?"

Dear Craig,
     The voters are able to reduce the seats by more than one in the
methods in which they have more than one vote, methods like
Plurality-At-Large, Cumulative Voting, and Limited Voting.

Donald: >the voter can select candidates with most of his votes, but he can
also indicate with some votes that he feels the number of seats should be
less for this election.

Craig: A separate question could ask that.

Donald: Not for the three methods in which the voter has more than one
vote, because the answer to the question would change the number of votes
each voter would have and this would need to be known before votes for
candidates were cast.
     Besides, we cannot ask the question because we do not know the full
question - we do not know how much of a reduction to ask for in the
question.
     In these three methods the voter is able to answer an unasked question
better than an asked question. They will tell us how many seats are to be
reduced by the number of votes they cast for None of the Rest.

     But, the question does need to be asked for the methods in which the
voter has only one vote, even if that vote has lower choices. With only one
vote the voters will only be able to reduce the number of winners by one,
if we do not ask the question.
    That is why I inserted the vote on reducing the seats to one half of
available candidates for the three methods, SNTV, Bottoms Up, and Choice
Voting.
    The question would be a bit different for Party List.

Closed Party List:
    In this method the voter's lack of choice cannot be corrected, except
by using Open Party List, but in this method the voter would first vote to
determine if or not the seats for each party cannot be more than one half
the number of candidates a party has running, for this one election only.

Open Party List:
    This method will give the voter far more choice than Closed Party List.
    The voter would first vote to determine if or not the seats for each
party cannot be more than one half the number of candidates a party has
running, for this one election only.
    How slots for None of the Above are to be used will depend on whatever
method is used by the voters to determine the order of the party lists.
    The seats that are not being filled will be a problem to the parties,
but the answer to this problem is for the parties not to control which of
its members can run for office. Parties should be putting up twice as many
candidates as they expect will win. Any dues paying, card carrying member
of a party should be free to run for any office and should receive equal
support from the party. It should be up to the party voters to decide which
candidate is to be elected.
    In the case of small elections, it should not be any more dificult to
become a candidate and run for office than it is to apply for a position of
employment.

Regards, Donald Davison

   +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
   |                         Q U O T A T I O N                         |
   |  "Democracy is a beautiful thing,                                 |
   |       except that part about letting just any old yokel vote."    |
   |                            - Age 10                               |
   +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+

      A   M O R E   D I R E C T   D E M O C R A C Y   W E B   S I T E
              A Source of Study Material for Political Change
                A More Direct Democracy is a New Democracy
                        http://www.mich.com/~donald
      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -