Olli -- voting show

Mon Dec 9 12:31:30 PST 2002

Very great stuff Olli.

How do you determine the two last boys when you have
a triple equality?
What happens to my vote if I had some preference for two
out of those three?

"Because we are physically standing in line, the voter cannot have several
votes being counted simultaneously. Do you agree?"

I do not know for others but I agree. However, because of your "rules" some voters are denied any vote at all: the lines they are in have no impact on the current pairwise comparison...
So voters still have different voting powers.

Steph.

> 
> Date: 2002/12/09 lun. PM 02:02:00 GMT-05:00
> 
> At 19:13 +0200 8.12.2002, James Gilmour wrote:
> >> Do you mean to say that in Approval a vote counts towards the election of
> >> several candidates?
> >
> >No - one vote can count towards the election only of one candidate.  But
> >the voter
> >may have several votes being counted simultaneously.
> 
> A fine point. I don't think I understand it.
> 
> >> Do I have more power if I approve of several candidates?
> >
> >That almost certainly depends on your definition of 'power'.
> 
> I had joint stock companies in mind, where you have the more votes the more
> stock you own.
> 
> >> Do I have most power if I approve all of them?
> >
> >No - irrespective of your definition of 'power'.  To vote for all
> >candidates has
> >the same effect on the outcome as not voting for any of them.  In terms of the
> >purpose of the election, the effect is identical - nil.
> 
> Good, I agree, we have some common ground then.
> 
> Let's now move on and beam ourselves to the school where the idea of STV
> was born. We are again conducting an election by standing behind our
> favourite candidate, but this time only one boy is to be elected. Just to
> make sure, the teacher has asked us to fill in a ballot paper, an ordinary
> STV ballot. But he has also, rather autocratically, imposed two new rules.
> 
> First, when a candidate is in danger of being eliminated, we are obliged to
> move into his line, if we have marked a preference for him on our ballot --
> you know, siding with the underdog and all that. The contest of elimination
> is between the two lowest candidates, and we are allowed to abandon our
> higher preferences temporarily without endangering them.
> 
> Second, at this point, in connection with elimination, we are not allowed
> to express a preference. If we have voted for both the last and the second
> to the last candidate, we have to step back and abstain until the
> elimination has been decided, even if one of the candididates is our first
> preference. Or we could cast half a vote for each candidate, which gives
> the same net result. With this rule we have to be a bit careful who we vote
> for. We don't want to express a preference for the big bully because we
> wouldn't be able to help to eliminate him.
> 
> When it has been decided who is to be eliminated, we will strike out the
> eliminated candidate from our ballot paper and move again to the line of
> our favourite candidate, if he hasn't been eliminated. The election will
> continue in the same way until all candidates but one have been eliminated.
> Elimination is used even when there are only two candidates left, meaning
> that we have to abstain if we have both on our ballot.
> 
> Because we are physically standing in line, the voter cannot have several
> votes being counted simultaneously. Do you agree?
> 
> This kind of election should find the Approval winner sequentially, if I've
> got it right. The order of preferences is of course irrelevant and so is
> the order in which eliminations are decided.
> 
> Olli Salmi
> 
> 
> ----
> For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), 
> please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em
> 
> 

----
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), 
please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em