[EM] another proposal for a voting system

[Allen Pulsifer]

> > In the runoff election, the plurality wins.

> I don't think it is appropriate to call it a plurality really.  You 
> would need 50% + 1 votes to get elected (unless the "other side" 
> doesn't unify against you, and then that is tacit support).

The plurality was on purpose.  If no alliance is able to form a majority,
then the plurality wins.  There's no possibility of stalemate.

> Is there an easy way to summarise a set of approval votes so 
> that the candidates knows what combinations they can use ?

A simple way would be to total the approvals for each alternate candidate,
and set a rule that the candidate can shift his votes to one other candidate
only, and the maximum number he can shift is equal to approval count for the
other candidate.  The remaining votes have to stay with him.

The tally would look like this:

    Votes    Alternate Approvals
              A       B      C      D
A   12,684     -     384     58    104       
B   14,365   957       -    354    212
C    1,583   346     756      -     12
D      574    87     483     65      -

This system would be guaranteed not to breach the restrictions placed by the
voters, but would not allow complete flexibility to shift all votes.  A more
complicated system, that allows more votes to be shifted, might also be
possible.

> It is similar to asset voting.  However, asset voting doesn't 
> put any restrictions on what they candidates can do with the 
> votes.  It is a pure proxy system.

Another advantage of this system is that voter participation is voluntary.
If they don't want their vote to be transferable, they can withhold their
approval for the other candidates.  That might keep it consistent with
constitutional language that requires each person to have a vote, i.e., no
one is taking their vote away and telling them they have to designate a
proxy -- its optional.

A good name for this system (if it doesn't have one already) might be
Restricted Proxy Runoff.