[EM] Introductory Message

[James Green-Armytage]

Bart Ingles <bartman at netgate.net> writes:
>In other words,
>if the PM election allows ratings of 1-10, a sophisticated voter would
>give each candidate either 1 or 10.

	I agree with this, for the most part. 
>
>In one sense, this is still a good system.  If all voters followed this
>strategy, the system would be equivalent to approval voting [AV].  

	I may as well point out that there is some controversy on the list about
the merits of approval voting. I happen to be a person who is a bit more
dubious about it than some. One serious drawback that it seems to have is
that it doesn't pass the "majority" or "mutual majority" criterion as
defined below:

majority criterion: If a majority of the voters prefers all of the members
of a given set of candidates over all candidates outside that set, and
they vote sincerely, then the winning candidate should come from that set.

	Both approval voting and cardinal ratings fail this criterion, which
makes them strategically problematic as well as generally unfair in some
cases.
	I may as well point out also that the abbreviation "AV" for approval
voting is confusing, because it has long been used internationally as an
abbreviation for "the Alternative Vote," which we know as instant runoff
voting in the States, thanks to the Center for Voting and Democracy
people. These methods are radically different, and a confusion between
them would not help anyone.

>The main drawback I see with CR is that it gives a sophisticated voter
>(using all-or-nothing strategy) slightly more power than a "naive" voter
>who always votes sincerely.  

	This is probably true. 

>The voting system must be relatively simple, or the average Israeli will
>be intimidated by it or forced to depend on the honesty of a
>sophisticated few who can tally a complicated system of voting, a wholly
>unacceptable, and unrealistic, state of affairs.  Additionally, we still
>use paper ballots. For those reasons I think that Condorcet, whatever its
>advantages may be, is not suited either to our electoral system, or to
>the mentality of Moshe Felafel (our equivalent of Joe Six-Pack).

	The goal of our election methods research is to present methods which
produce fair, stable, and high-utility results even when voters are trying
to use strategy. That is, most likely, methods in which strategically
voters cannot exercise much more power than sincere voters, or in other
words, methods where a sincere vote is usually the most beneficial course
of action for any given voter or voting bloc.
	Given such methods, while many voters may choose not to take the time to
understand the tally system, they will be able to participate effectively
simply by casting a sincere vote. Given a system like Condorcet or STV,
all this takes is for voters to rank the candidates in order of
preference, something that anyone can do as long as they have the ability
to count, and understand the concept of first choices, second choices,
third choices, and so on. 

>Presently we vote for the parties that comprise the Knesset separately
>from the PM.  I should like to see voter ratings of 1 – 120 (120
>corresponding to the number of seats in the Knesset) for the parties that
>are contending for seats in the Knesset.  Thus, theoretically, one party
>could hold every seat in the Knesset (of course this scenario is well
>nigh impossible, but the possibility should exist).  This voting
>procedure would not only determine which parties will comprise the
>Knesset, and how many seats they will have, but will do away with the
>present system of parties having to pass a 1.5% thre shold of votes in
>order to have any representation at all

	I don't understand this proposed method. How are the ballots cast
translated into the number of seats allotted to each party? You seemed to
have skipped over that part, perhaps because you thought it was obvious.
	For the Prime Minister I would recommend some version of Condorcet's
method.

>As you are also a citizen of Ireland, I am surprised you did not
>recognise the potential benefits of
>changing the Knesset voting system to STV-PR, as used in Ireland.  The
>only two changes from Dáil
>Éireann I would suggest are larger electoral districts and the use of the
>Northern Ireland STV
>counting rules.
>James Gilmour

	I will second this suggestion. STV seems like the right way to do
proportional representation. If you were married to paper ballots, then
you probably couldn't do the whole Knesset in one district, so you might
have to sacrifice some proportionality. 

>The Israeli voter is wont to imagine herself or himself a good deal more
>sophisticated politically that she or he really is.  Another factor that
>I must take into consideration is the fact that the Israeli government is
>very intrusive in the life of the citizenry, this is a left-over from our
>socialist days.  Almost all jobs, other than the most menial, are a
>result of either nepotism or political affiliation and loyalty, or both.
>Voters will do as they are instructed by their parties (and bosses).
>Oddly, this does not present a paradox in the mind of the swaggering
>Israeli who imagines herself or himself very politically sophisticated
>indeed.  Tampering with the tallying of the ballots is not unusual.

	At present I don't know of any voting method that can prevent these sorts
of problems. I would be interested in hearing other suggestions on the
matter. I will keep thinking about it.

	Also, would you mind explaining what the powers of the prime minister
are, versus the Knesset and whatever other branches of government?	

my best,
James