[Election-Methods] Challenge: Elect the compromise when there'reonly 2 factions

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 09:48 AM 8/30/2007, Howard Swerdfeger wrote:
>In personal economics a diversified portfolio helps reduce risk, I see
>no reason why in fractional asset should not follow the same logic. by
>diversifying the people or groups you give your votes to you reduce risk
>of your vote being corrupted.

Well, whether or not it reduces risk depends on the effort you can 
put into watching how your vote works.

There are two versions of the adage:

"Don't put all your eggs in one basket," and

"Put all your eggs in one basket and watch that basket like a hawk!"

If you have eggs in many baskets, you may not be able to watch them.

FAAV allows you to make the choice, while the ballot remains very simple.

I'd probably vote for one, though, because I think know who, quite 
precisely, represents me, and I can talk to this person. Now, with 
secret ballot, I could vote for five and then talk to one, it still 
works. But then I really only know how one fraction of my vote is working....

Someone who is relatively uninformed about all the possible 
candidates -- which is pretty braod in Asset, we assume that 
something very similar to write-in is allowed -- might indeed decide 
to spread the vote out among a number of candidates, not being sure 
about whom to trust.

But, generally, in my view, the best strategy in asset is to pick the 
single candidate you most trust. If this is based on knowledge, it's 
safer than spreading it around. That a candidate is getting a *lot* 
of votes, though, is a mark against him in Asset! It does make him a 
target for possible corruption. So that, too, is a factor.

Asset turns traditional politics on its head. Voting for one person 
is quite practical in Asset, you can even simply vote for yourself, 
in which case you become a public elector and can participate in the 
direct democracy of electors.....