[EM] Voting by selecting a published ordering

Jobst Heitzig heitzig-j at web.de
Fri Apr 7 00:35:13 PDT 2006

Hey folks!

Brilliant idea in my opinion, too!

I suggest the following phases of implementation:

First phase: Don't change ballots, just tally according to the published
orderings, using whatever nice ranked-ballot method (preferably DMC for
its simplicity)

Second phase: Change the ballot so that voter can not only mark her
favourite but can also indicate some additional candidates as "also
approved". In this way, counting remains simple. For the tallying, the
individual voter's ranking is automatically constructed like this: X is
above Y if either X is approved but Y is not, or X is above Y in the
published ranking.

Third phase: Change the ballot further so that it alternatively allows
to specify a ranking (optionally with approval cutoff) directly.

Yours, Jobst

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> At 04:18 PM 4/6/2006, raphfrk at netscape.net wrote:
>>This is a step in the direction of closed party lists, which are a
>>really bad idea.
> Actually, it is a step *away* from such lists. As long as anyone can 
> declare and run as a candidate. Note that even write-in candidates 
> would work, provided that the write-in has submitted a list in 
> advance (if the lists are provided in advance, which they are in this 
> proposal).
>>However, I guess since the candidate submits his own list, there is
>>less of a
>>problem with a party's central office controlling the process.  The
>>question then
>>becomes how someone becomes a candidate in the first place.
> How about by registering with the election officials? Perhaps with a 
> petition signed by a certain number of voters, relatively modest. 
> But, as I mention above, as long as anyone files a list with the 
> election officials prior to the election, with the proposal as it is, 
> write-ins would work. They would not be wasted votes, unlike most write-ins.
> Hey folks, it is a really brilliant proposal, wish I had thought of 
> it myself....
>>I am not so sure giving a boost to candiates who convince alot of other
>>candidates to
>>place them 2nd is a good idea.  This promotes an "insider" effect.
> Ah, but insiders know each other. The problem with outsiders is that 
> they are unknown. Ever notice that periodically "outsiders" -- or 
> those who pretend to be so -- are elected in a backlash, and then 
> nothing really changes, as the "outsiders" turn out to be the same 
> old same old?
> I think this is a *strength* of the proposal. I think that 
> politicians know each other much better than the general public knows 
> them. And breaking into this system would not be difficult at all. 
> You just start participating in politics at a low level, so that you 
> get to know people. You become an insider, in a word. It would be, I 
> think, harder to buy yourself in, by coming in as a "reformer", i.e., 
> all too often, as someone spending their own wealth to gain office. 
> It is expensive to run campaigns. If you are funded by existing 
> organizations and structures, you are, by definition, an "insider." 
> If you are not funded by these, it is almost impossible to raise the 
> necessary funding, so "outsiders" must almost intrinsically be 
> wealthy or supported by the wealthy. It's not rocket science.
>>You are probably right that it would be an easier sell than updating
>>infrastructure and also, it means that anyone can easily check the
>>results which is
>>not possible in most ranked elections.  It would need to be made clear
>>improving efficiency by implementing party list system is not a natural
>>next step.
> That would, of course, not improve efficiency at all, it would merely 
> complicate the process and make it more manipulable by disempowering 
> individual candidates and putting the power into less accountable 
> party structures. I can't imagine why one would move from a candidate 
> list system to a party list system. What in the world would be 
> gained? A party could already insist that its candidate follow a 
> party-approved list; what the candidate system would do is to allow 
> candidates to run independently of parties. Of course, any candidate 
> could get around an imposed party-list system unless it were made 
> difficult to form a party. There are anti-democratic measures that 
> are sometimes taken to do this....
> I think it is a pretty safe proposal.
> ----
> election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list