[EM] One vote per voter

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Forrest wrote:

Hey I like that. I've never put it that way, and it hadn't occurred to
me. I've spoken of Approval as a point system, but this approach
shows that Approval can't even be criticized in terms of the Plurality
1-person-1-vote interpretation.

But putting it in terms of one vote that is divided up, someone could
say they want to be able to divide or concentrate it among the candidates
however they wish, and of course that would just give us Plurality.

Only one vote per candidate from a voter sounds familiar, and one could
say "What's wrong with, instead of 'One person one vote', 'One person
one equal supply of votes, of which one may use as many as one wishes?"

The fact that we'd still be calling them whole votes helps avoid the
complaint that someone can't concentrate it all on one candidate, since
people are used to the idea that they can't give anyone more than 1
vote.

>Another way to look at Approval in terms of one vote per voter:
>
>Suppose there are N candidates. Count each approval as exactly one Nth of
>a point. That way no man can vote a total of more than one point. (And
>he's a fool to vote a full N/N .)
>
>You can vote less than one point if you want, same as in single mark
>plurality.
>
>Forest
>
>On Mon, 26 Mar 2001, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > >Like I said, depends on how you look at it.
> > >Plurality could be seen as a system in which you
> > >must vote yes on one candidate and no on the
> > >rest, so once again, you have as many votes as
> > >candidates; they just aren't independent
> >
> > Good point. Plurality makes you vote "no" on all but one candidate.
> > A pretty absurd rule, isn't it.
> >
> > Approval is point system, in which you can give 1 or 0 points to
> > any candidate. Plurality is a peculiar point system that, oddly,
> > requires you to give 1 to only one candidate, and zero to the others.
> >
> > If someone wants to say that 1-person-1-vote means Plurality or IRV,
> > and call that a democratic principle, then it's for that person to
> > tell why that's an important democratic principle.
> >
> > It should be obvious that a method that makes people falsify preferences
> > and dump their favorite is worse than one that doesn't.
> >
> > Mike Ossipoff
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
> >
> >
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com