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

[Howard Swerdfeger]

> 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!"

General advise: If you do this, in any respect you must be reasonably 
certain that if some threat does come to your "eggs" you have
1. The ability to see the danger coming,
2. The ability to act and move your "eggs" to a safe location, before 
danger strikes.

even if you watch it 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.

I disagree, I would pick a candidate who I think will closely match my 
voting pattern and would either have direct influence in the debate and 
framing of the argument, or someone who has a large amount of direct 
influence over somebody who does.

I also think if you are going to choose someone who has a small number 
of votes that you are best to split it up, as you are farther down the 
decision tree and are thus more likely to have your vote perverted away 
from your desires. but then again after splitting it up my votes would 
again merge at a higher level...."All roads lead to Rome", after all.


change of topic:
How large do you envision this tree or trail of representatives being?

i.e. I and 20 friends vote for some guy we all know, he transfers to 
some regional Rep, who transfers power to a city rep..etc...this might 
easily go on for 6 or 7 levels...

I expect that if an asset or proxy system was implemented on large 
scale, between 10^6 and 10^9 people. the ultimate and final word on all 
decisions would be made by 5-10 large proxies. The question becomes how 
many close advisers could they have, (i.e. the people who transfer the 
most votes to them).

I'm really just trying to think of this in terms of a tree of power.
How many would make the final decision? I know you like to rant about 
how an individual could if they want vote on every bill, but that 
individual will likely not matter at all.

As you got down the power tree what is the likely number of branches you 
would have coming off at each level? What would the average depth of the 
tree be?

My guess is it would be a very short tree, and that a large majority of 
the population would be in the first 3 or 4 levels

> 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.....