# [EM] 1-Person-1-Vote has been abandoned.

Bart Ingles bartman at netgate.net
Sat Jan 18 17:50:50 PST 2003

```Adam Tarr wrote:
>
> So, by my reckoning, every commonly discussed single-winner election method
> passes 1p1v, although Borda sort of teeters on the edge, and Condorcet
> doesn't really fit rules of 1p1v at all.  Well, that's the best I can do,
> and I don't think it's particularly meaningful or applicable.  Can anyone
> do better?

I doubt that I can do better, but I agree that the very concept of 1p1v
depends entirely on how you define a "vote".  If a vote is an
indivisable entity, then 1p1v is pretty much the definition of plurality
voting, and only plurality voting meets the criterion.

If you allow the voter to cast fractional votes, then I'm don't know
what system fails 1p1v.  Obviously this allows cumulative voting, but
then why not others:

Approval Voting:  Each voter's vote is divided into n fractions of value
1/n, where n is the number of candidates.  The voter is allowed to cast
one and only one fractional vote per candidate.  This fractional vote
can be cast as either "for" or "against".

Runoff or IRV:  Each voter has r fractional votes, equal to 1/r whole
votes, where r is the number of rounds required (I think the most
fair-sounding definition for these methods is that each voter votes
exactly once per round, thus each voter votes r times-- the "traveling
vote" explanation would only make sense if any effect of the vote in its
prior position is reversed before the vote is allowed to "travel".

Condorcet:  Each voter has n(n-1)/2 fractional votes, of which one and
only one shall be cast for each pair of candidates.

Bart

----