[EM] 06/16/02 - Let's `Sort-Out' the Candidates:

[Donald E Davison]

06/16/02 - Let's `Sort-Out' the Candidates:

Dear Mike,
You wrote: "Here's a puzzle question.  How can a group of 20-50 people make
collective decisions on various subjects - WITHOUT the use of a chairperson
(benevolent dictator) to "control the meeting", decide when is the "right
time" to call for a vote, etc.?  The current methods are stifling to the
various members who have good ideas but can't bring them to a vote."

Donald:  If we are to have a group function with more freedom and less
structure, then they must not be forced to make a judgement on some subject
by a deadline (if possible).  People think and act at different rates and
times, besides, some may already have a full plate, or maybe they are
waiting to see the `lay of the land'.  Whatever, the group should have the
freedom of ample time.

I propose the following system, which has less structure:

  * The entire group is to be connected via email subscription list.
  * Any member of the group can propose a measure to be voted on.
  * The measure must receive a second in ten days.
  * More than one measure can be on the table at one time.
  * The members vote whenever they want to vote, there is no deadline.
  * A vote can be changed anytime, provided the change is make before the
possible passage of the measure.
  * All casting of votes and changes are made known to all members.
  * If and when a measure receives a passing vote, then the measure becomes
law at that time.

A passing vote will need to be defined.  I favor a conclusive majority of
two-thirds for two good reasons.  One: two-thirds means that more members
approve of the measure, that is, more members than fifty percent plus one.
Two: two-thirds avoids the `flip-flop' condition in which a measure may be
passed by only a few votes only to be over-ridden a time later by a few
votes.  If a law is a good law then it should have some staying power.


Some measures and/or candidate elections will need a deadline, which the
proposer should include as part of the proposal.

This routine can also be used in place of any single-seat candidate
election method.
  * Of course, there must be a deadline.
  * Candidates can be nominated anytime before the deadline.
  * Candidates are free to withdraw anytime before the deadline.
  * Votes can be cast and recast anytime before the deadline.
  * Anytime a candidate receives fifty-plus-one before the deadline, that
candidate is elected, the election is over.
  * If no simple-majority winner, then the leading candidate at the
deadline is the winner.

Let's allow the voters to sort things out.  Instead of some so called
expert or politician telling the voters and/or candidates which single seat
election method they should be using, we should let the voters and/or
candidates sort things out themselves.

An example of how this sorting out would work, take the case of three or
more candidates in which two are tied for the lead.  One possible solution
would be if some voters changed their votes, but which voters?  The voters
of the two tied candidates are not going to change, they are too close to
victory.  But, some of the voters of the third place candidates may see
handwriting on the wall and consider changing their votes.  They may wish
to have a say between the final two candidates.   If so, the tie will be
broken and the election will be over, we have a winner (drum roll please).
So, allowing the voters to change their vote is one path towards solving
problems.

The other possible solution would be if one of the candidates decided to
withdraw, but which candidate is most likely to do that, not one of the two
tied candidates in first place.  They are too close to victory.  Instead,
maybe a third or lower place candidate will see handwriting on the wall and
decide to withdraw.  This will force his supporters to change their votes.
No one likes to force anyone to change their vote, but sometimes it is
necessary to get on with electing someone and wraping up the election.

This same sorting on the part of the voters and/or candidates can also come
into play in the event the leading candidate is disliked by some voters and
other candidates.  They will need to make decisions that they don't care to
make, but it may take that to sort the candidates out.

Yes, the members should be able to sort-out the candidates, if they refuse
to `Sort-Out', then they deserve who they get.


Regards,
   Donald Davison, host of New Democracy at http://www.mich.com/~donald
                        Candidate Election Methods
   +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
   |                        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 -                              |
   +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
    APV   Approval Voting
    ATV   Alternative Vote  aka  IRV Instant Runoff Voting  aka  IRVing
    FPTP  First Past The Post  aka  Plurality
    NOTA  None of the Above  aka  RON Re-Open Nominations
    STV   Single Transferable Vote  aka  Choice Voting  aka  Hare-Clark
          aka  Preference Voting  aka  Hare Preferential Voting

Please be advised that sending email to me allows me to quote from it
and/or forward the entire email to others.






















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