[EM] Student government - what voting system to recommend?

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 01:58 PM 4/22/2007, Tim Hull wrote:
>P.S. Under my "pro wrestler" example, I was assuming that the voter 
>would, under a range system, give the pro wrestler a 3 or a 2 out of 
>10, except for those who prefer them first.  In this case, both IRV 
>and Range would not elect this candidate.

With that assumption, the analysis is correct. What this points out 
is how, to actually get reasonable outcomes, it is necessary to 
collect and use preference strength. And this, necessarily, involves 
violating the Majority Criterion in a single-step method.

This is most important with single-winner. While preference strength 
does have the same kind of effect in multiwinner election methods, 
when representation is involved, it is important, in fact, to have 
first-place preferences be the ones chosen for the majority, 
preferably the large majority, of voters. And with first-place 
preference, strength is not so important.

It still matters, though, when we get down to gathering the dregs, 
the scraps of votes left after nearly all winners have been 
determined. It's easiest to see, of course, for the last seat, since 
at that point the election has been reduced to single-winner. But it 
really begins to matter as soon as second-preference votes are being used.

Asset Voting avoids the whole problem through a trick: it is not a 
complete election method, rather it creates a class of electors who 
then can use deliberative process (which includes negotiation) to 
complete the process.

I would find it socially beneficial if student governments would 
experiment with advanced methods. Oddly, though, there doesn't seem 
to be a lot of interest. Are students today satisfied with the status quo?

One would think not, but, then again..... we don't see a lot of 
interest from students. When I talk to them personally, they often 
like the delegable proxy ideas and the like (which, in the end, are, 
shall we say, anarchist-compatible without being *radical* except in 
the sense of stepping out of the box). But that has yet to translate 
into any action.

What I've seen, perhaps, could be explained by a situation that I've 
mentioned before. People who want to reform democracy often have an 
additional agenda: they favor this or that political position. And 
setting up a totally open system -- which is what true democracy 
demands -- might not favor that! This is quite specifically the 
reason why democracy reform organizations are, typically, not 
democratically organized themselves. Democracy is for some other 
organization, not ours. We wouldn't want to be diverted from our 
purpose! The irony of this is mostly lost on them, I've described 
this situation -- which is not in doubt, it's clear -- and the result 
in one case was that, for no specified offense and without warning, I 
was banned from the relevant mailing list. Yet I believe that 
organizations have a right to be undemocratic!