[EM] Low Tech Proxy P.R. Method- Party Variant, 22 Oct 2001

[Joe Weinstein]

As Forest noted:  "In the USA (where convenience is right up there with mom 
and apple pie)some of these proxy ideas just might catch on!"

Indeed, recall that the USA does use a convoluted doubly proxified method 
every four years in the presidential election!  Namely, each state holds an 
election to choose a slate (of 'Electors')  In this contest, a pair - 
comprising a presidential candidate and a party - is the usual proxy which 
the average voter sees and for which she votes.  In turn (for the twist!) 
the chosen Electors' sole function is be proxies themselves - namely the 
state's voters' proxies for electing a president.

Joe


----Original Message Follows----
From: Forest Simmons <fsimmons at pcc.edu>
Reply-To: election-methods-list at eskimo.com
To: election-methods-list at eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [EM] Low Tech Proxy P.R. Method- Party Variant, 22 Oct 2001
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 12:18:39 -0700 (PDT)

Can anybody see even one advantage that any of these low tech proxy PR
variants has over Craig Layton's open list cumulative/approval method?

For Craig's PR proposal see message 7686 of the EM archives:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/election-methods-list/message/7686

Craig's method is just as low tech (one bit per candidate) as the
suggested proxy variants, and is easily adapted [follow his EM message
thread!] to give PR results as good as any existing PR method, proxy or
not.

As far as I can see, the only possible advantage of a proxy PR method is
the convenience of just shading one bubble (to designate your proxy) and
letting your proxy worry about how to actually vote.


Forest



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