[EM] A new simulation

Jobst Heitzig heitzig-j at web.de
Sat Dec 6 04:45:00 PST 2008

Hi Adb ul-Rahman,

still, Asset Voting is majoritarian and therefore not democratic. The 
reason why we have been studying methods with chance components (that 
is, non-deterministic methods) is that we wanted to find a democratic 
method, i.e. one that does not give any subset of the voters (no matter 
how many they are) total decision power.

Of course, Asset Voting can easily be modified to achieve this: After 
the inter-candidate negotiations, not Plurality but Random Ballot is 
used for the final decision.

Yours, Jobst

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax schrieb:
> At 05:15 PM 12/4/2008, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
>> If you think the risk is too great even so, have a preface adjustment 
>> where all candidates that fall below a threshold of first votes are 
>> eliminated. The threshold should be very low, say 10. This will 
>> introduce some compromising incentive, but again, that incentive 
>> should be very slight.
> Sure. However, if we are going to discuss pie-in-the-sky alternatives, 
> why not start with one that is spectacular in what it could accomplish, 
> that finesses the whole issue. Asset Voting. No need for any vote 
> threshold. Total representation in further process by choice.
> For starters.
> Election of an Assembly that is fully representative, where every seat 
> was chosen directly or indirectly (through chosen "electors") by N 
> voters, through voluntary cooperation rather than competition. And as to 
> the dregs, represented by those electors who can't get it together to 
> cooperate sufficiently, they are *still* represented in votes, if the 
> electors -- who are identified public voters -- can still vote directly.
> Existence of a large fully representative body (the "electoral 
> college"), which can handle special elections, for example, efficiently 
> and cheaply.
> Possibility of recall of "seats" who no longer represent those who chose 
> them.
> Possibility of deciding all single-winner elections deliberatively, 
> which is probably, properly done, better than any known single-ballot 
> method.
> And on and on.
> And not a new idea. Asset Voting was described by Lewis Carroll (Charles 
> Dodgeson) in the early 1880s as a tweak on Single Transferable Vote, to 
> deal with exhausted ballots, allowing people without sufficient 
> information to rank more than one to still participate even if they 
> don't vote for one of the potential winners.
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list