[EM] The Demise of the Compromise Candidate:

[Tom Ruen]

Okay Don,

Try this, You're in a room of 1000 people with 100 well known popular
candidates and you want to elect one. Do you still want to force people to
only vote for one? I'll give this election 30 minutes instead of 15 minutes.
Can you do this with exhaustive single-vote balloting? (If you get two
election round done in 30 minutes I'll be impressed.)

My approach to all large choice elections that need quick results would be:
1. Use approval voting. (voters vote for as many or few as they like)
2. Eliminate half (or half rounded down) candidates each round with lowest
approval.
3. Stop when one candidate is alone above 50% approval.

This can be done in Log2(N) rounds, 7 rounds in this case of 100 candidates.

Approval voting can be done without ballots - simple hand raising - no need
to check that everyone votes only once.

There are no spoilers because each candidate gets a vote independent of all
others. A single winner is guaranteed at the end.

Tom Ruen

----- Original Message -----
From: "I like Irving" <donald at mich.com>
To: "[EM]" <election-methods-list at eskimo.com>
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 3:23 AM
Subject: [EM] The Demise of the Compromise Candidate:


> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 03/12/01
> Greetings,
>
> Tom Ruen wrote:  "I'd still like an answer from you: Which do you prefer
> with single rank ballots - Approval or Plurality? Both support runoff
> methods."
>
> Don:  Plurality is my answer, because Plurality will always elect the
> majority candidate whenever there is a majority candidate.  Approval may
> elect many of them, but not all of them.
>
> Tom:  "For example, If you were in a room with 100 people and had to
> collectively choose one of 10 choices (assuming no previous coalitions
> formed - everyone is voting blind on their own intuition) and you had to
> make a decision within 15 minutes, would you rather use approval-votes
> runoffs or single votes in a runoff? A single majority candidate means the
> same thing in both cases."
>
> Don:  For your example of 100 people in a room I would like to use my
> method called `Repeating Ballots'.
>      It is a method that I regard as the standard for all election
methods,
> single and multi seat.  While I claim the method to be superior to all
> other election methods, it is not acceptable to be used in most elections
> because it requires a series of possible repeat elections and people do
not
> show up for later ballots.
>      But, in your example of 100 persons `locked' in a room, my Repeating
> Ballots method will work quite well.
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Repeating Ballots Standard:  by Donald Davison
>
>      1) This is a method in which there is the possibility of repeat
> ballots, limited in number to the number of candidates on the first
ballot.
>      2) On each ballot, the voter only cast one vote, no other choices.
>      3) Anytime there is a candidate with a majority of votes cast in the
> current ballot, that candidate is the winner and the election is over,
> otherwise the ballot is repeated.
>      4) No candidate is eliminated, but a candidate may withdraw before
the
> next ballot.
>      5) On the next ballot, voters may vote the same candidate, change
> their vote, or not vote.
>      6) If there is no majority winner before the last ballot, the leading
> candidate of the last ballot is the winner.
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>      When this method is used in a real election in the real world, only
> then will we really find out how much popularity this so called compromise
> candidate has.  I feel he is overrated.
>      I feel that what is being termed as a compromise candidate is nothing
> more than a backup candidate.  In a 45A, 35B, 20C election, there are
types
> on the Election Methods list who claim that the A and B voters will rush
to
> vote for their `compromise' candidate C on the next ballot.
>      I don't think so.  I say the method is going to show a lost of
support
> for candidate C and the demise of the compromise candidate myth.
>      But, the proof of the pudding will be in using the Repeating Ballot
> method in real elections.
>
>      I encourge anyone who is a member of any organization to have your
> organization use this method at your annual Election Dinner, and please,
> let us know the results of each ballot.
>
> Donald Dvison,