[EM] equal "opportunity" vs "power"

[Kevin Venzke]

Brian,

 --- Brian Olson <bql at bolson.org> a écrit : 
> Speaking of "write a new meaning", I challenge that "we all agree" 
> statement. In a recent comment of mine, I claimed that "equal 
> opportunity to vote" is not the same as "equal voting power". You are 
> expressing "equal opportunity to vote" but I think I've seen more usage 
> of 1p1v as "equal voting power".

I read your message but have no idea what you mean by "equal voting power."
Can you define it?

>Approval may not give exactly equal voting power, some voters will 
>choose more or fewer choices, but it at least gives equal opportunity 
>to vote.

Are you saying that a voter has more power if they vote for more candidates?

>> Similarly Borda is definitely NOT "one person, one vote".
>
>In the variation where the unranked choices are given the average value 
>of the ranks not used, every voter has equal voting power. ((n(n-1))/2)

If this is true, then equal voting power seems undesirable.  If a person truncates
then presumably they prefer to give zero points to the truncated candidates.

>Fascinating historical article. So, it seems to me that the primary 
>objection was that in the second (Nth) round of Bucklin _some_ people 
>might be getting additional votes but not necessarily _all_ people. 
>Someone putting down only a first place choice would be given no 
>additional vote in the 2nd round. I would suggest a distribution like 
>for Borda above. This could be countered by saying that a 1st-only 
>ballot then only casts meaningless votes in Bucklin rounds. I say 
>"equal opportunity to vote", and they didn't take it, they effectively 
>stayed at home past the first round. Dunno if that would hold up in 
>court but I'd love to try. :-)

Does it occur to you that a voter might not *want* to give a vote to a second
candidate?  It's not as though the first choice is eliminated!

>Also IRV falls to this logic in the event of an incomplete ballot. If 
>all of an elector's choices that they ranked on their ballot get 
>disqualified, _they get no vote_!

But this would not be fixed by using a "distribution like for Borda above."
Could IRV be made to have equal voting power, then?

>I claim that a normalized cardinal ratings election satisfies one 
>person equal-power/one-vote.

Why is it important that the method would meet "equal power"?

>Really, all of these systems that suffer from incomplete-ballot 
>sub-optimality only provide "equal opportunity to vote" and not 
>necessarily "equal voting power". Normalized CR provides both!

What do you mean by "incomplete-ballot sub-optimality"?

Kevin Venzke
stepjak at yahoo.fr


	

	
		
Yahoo! Mail : votre e-mail personnel et gratuit qui vous suit partout ! 
Créez votre Yahoo! Mail sur http://fr.benefits.yahoo.com/

Dialoguez en direct avec vos amis grâce à Yahoo! Messenger !Téléchargez Yahoo! Messenger sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com