[EM] Advanced Voting Systems: the Dirty Little Secret

Michael Allan mike at zelea.com
Sun Dec 21 20:33:30 PST 2008

Hi Abd,

> His solution just could make advanced voting systems moot, intellectual 
> curiosities, unusual of application. Allow the first preference candidate 
> on the ballot to "own" the votes, to be reassigned at the discretion of 
> this candidate, "as if it were their own property." Smith used the "asset" 
> metaphor, which is the same. Candidate proxy, though, is more descriptive, 
> that's what it is, so here I will use that term.

I'm interested in how this meshes with continuous voting.  I haven't
read Carroll's pamphlet [1].  I read some of Duncan Black's analysis
of it.  He says that the votes are alienated from the original
casters.  Candidates treat them "as if they were their own private
property" [2, quoting Carroll].

But if the votes were open to recasting in real time, then they'd no
longer be alienable.  They'd remain the "property" of the original
casters, firmly in their hands *despite* the fact of delegation.
(This is an interesting combination.)

Who was the first to explore the idea of recasting votes in a
continuous proxy election?  Do you know of any sources?

  [1]. Lewis Carroll.  1884.  The Principles of Parliamentary
       Representation.  Harrison and Sons.  London.

  [2]. Duncan Black.  1969.  Lewis Carroll and the theory of games.
       The American Economic Review.  59(2), p. 210.

Michael Allan

Toronto, 647-436-4521

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list