[Election-Methods] RE : Re: RE : Re: Primary Elections using a "Top 2/Single Transferable Voting Method"

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax abd at lomaxdesign.com
Mon Dec 17 12:59:46 PST 2007

At 01:05 PM 12/17/2007, Kevin Venzke wrote:
>Well, selecting someone to fill a role whose sole function is to vote for a
>president... If the voters already have an opinion on the issue then
>there's nothing to offer them except to promise to vote the way they want
>on the main issue.

How about "If the vote is relevant, I'll vote for Ralph Nader. 
Otherwise I'll vote for Al Gore; and if that is not relevant, I'll 
use my discretion"?

Of course, if there are enough electors like this, how would they 
know what is relevant? Nevertheless, we should be so luck as to have 
that problem. Presumably, in nearly all situations, they'd know; I'd 
assume that Nader electors would be in communication with each other.....

In a real Asset system, one would not have the single-ballot fixed 
election of the present implementation of the U.S. electoral college. 
Rather, there would be a requirement of a majority for single-winner 
elections, it would be standard deliberative process, I'd assume 
(that is, balloting continues until there is a majority vote for a 
result). Put approval voting in there and the whole process could be 
much faster (with, perhaps, a final ratification required, Yes/No on 
the result, which solves possible strategic voting problems).

>The best solution, it seems to me, is to have the decision be made by
>people who were elected for some other primary responsibility. For example,
>have all the elected mayors (pretending for a moment that all cities have
>elected mayors), or someone hand-picked by each mayor, serve also as
>delegates. I don't think this would affect races for mayor that much,
>especially if they are elected before it's clear who is running for

Well, this is the original college concept. The *real* electors were 
the members of the state legislatures. Problem is, majority decision 
in that case leads to anomalies, as we all know. All or nothing.

I prefer pure electoral choice. What isn't realized by many who come 
upon this asset voting concept is that voters really could 
effectively vote for *anyone* who is willing to serve (I'd require 
registration for practical reasons, perhaps "candidates" would be 
assigned a number (or a specific name to use so that it is unique) 
and there would be a directory available at the polling place as well 
as elsewhere. The simplest system, of course, is to have the 
candidates serve as electors. But that requires large-scale choice of 
electors, the very problem that really should be avoided.

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list