[EM] Voting by selecting a published ordering
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
abd at lomaxdesign.com
Fri Apr 14 07:10:24 PDT 2006
At 04:08 AM 4/14/2006, Dave Ketchum wrote:
>Actually, this debate is becoming complex beyond any hope of value.
What is happening is that some are taking a very simple and clean
idea and trying to tweak it to add this or that supposed benefit.
>The lists had value in approaching the capability of ranked choice on
>voting machines that can handle ONLY simple preference voting.
That is one benefit. It is not the only reason to consider the idea.
Readers might notice that ranked list voting is a variation on
Delegable Proxy, somewhat similar to Asset Voting, though less flexible.
(If the candidates can provide the lists after the election, or if
such lists are used only in a first round, with failure to win a
majority approval -- approval cutoff could be included in the
candidate-provided lists -- then it really is Asset Voting of a kind.)
And this leads me to suggest a solution to the overvoting problem in
candidate-list. Simple, really. Divide the votes. If you vot for two,
each candidate gets a half-vote. In standard elections, this would
effectively halve the voting power of the voter, but in this case,
because votes are not so easily wasted, it would not. (Same is true
in Asset Voting; the original proposal allowed fractional assignments
to as many candidates as the voter chose to approve; FAAV allows
votes of the form 1/N by voting for N candidates.)
>They had problems in that there would need to be many lists - often
>several for each candidate - those ready to give A first preference may
>want B or C or D or E for second preference.
I think this an entirely unwarranted complication, and far from a necessity.
>BUT - as soon as you want complications such as described below:
> You need a more capable machine.
> Which could have ranked choice built in.
> And has little need for anything more, for ranked choice can do any
>vote the lists dream of - with actually simpler rules for voters and
Limited ranked choice is quite simple with standard equipment, it
simply multiplies the number of positions by the number of allowed
ranks. It is complex ranking which has the potential for overwhelming
voting machine capacity.
None of this is really a problem with paper ballots, which points to
the mass foolishness of moving to automated equipment. Supposedly it
saved money, but the amount of money involved in counting ballots is
trivial compared to the importance.
More information about the Election-Methods