[Election-Methods] Partisan Politics + a method proposal

[Dave Ketchum]

On Fri, 30 May 2008 13:35:11 -0400 Fred Gohlke wrote:
> Good Morning, Dave
> 
> Thank you for your comments on the outline I started for Juho.  I will 
> include it in this message, modified by adding the points you mentioned, 
> striking some material (which can be reinstated, if appropriate), adding 
> comments, and making a change suggested by one of Juho's comments.
> 
> Perhaps we can flesh the material out.  If so, I will maintain the list 
> as well as time permits.  Right now, the outline does not reflect my 
> idea of a sound electoral method but many of the ideas are sketchy and 
> vague.  I would like to help hone them into robust form while gaining 
> fresh insight into a complex problem.  I hope, before we are done, we 
> have an outline we can all be comfortable with.  If you feel my efforts 
> are intrusive or unwelcome, I shall, of course, desist.
> 
> It is likely there will be alternate views on some items.  I will show 
> both sides of the issue until one or the other predominates.  Some of 
> the points may be divisive.  If so, those who dissent may build a 
> separate outline or maintain a separate branch of the discussion.
> 
> Obviously, given the difficulty of communicating with clarity, there is 
> a hazard in maintaining such an outline.  If anyone notices an error, 
> they should call it to my attention, preferably without rancor, so it 
> can be corrected.
> 
> At the moment, the outline is a bit of a jumble but it should improve in 
> readability and understandability as we work on it.
> 
> --- ... --- ... --- ... --- ... --- ... --- ... --- ... --- ...
> 
> * NOMINATIONS, NOMINATORS and NOMINEES
> 
> - nominations are open to the entire electorate.
> 
> - nominators may nominate anyone, including themselves.
> 
> - nominations are incomplete until accepted by the nominee.
> 
> - nominators may not nominate more than one nominee.
> 
> - nominator and nominee must be part of the electorate.
> 
> - nominees may provide a resume, not larger than the equivalent of [30?? 
> flg] typewritten 8.5 x 11 pages.  The resume may include references to 
> additional source material describing the nominee's knowledge, 
> experience and aspirations.
> 
Depends on race - even one such page would be overkill for some local races.

As would apply THROUGHOUT, some of the rules for governor are unlike what 
is needed for village trustee.
> 
> * RESTRICTIONS
> 
> - an educational minimum [define the minimum.  flg]
> 
> - if expertise is required in the area for which the person is 
> nominated, a degree symbolizing competence in that area.  [this item 
> needs expansion.  It should list the offices that require a degree and 
> the degree required.  flg]
> 
Degrees are not always the best evidence of ability.
> 
> * ELECTION COORDINATOR
> 
> - lists of nominators and nominees are maintained by an election 
> coordinator and may be accessed by any member of the electorate. [should 
> the election coordinator publish the list?  Where?  flg]

Internet web pages are, more and more, the best choice.
> 
> - publishes the candidates' resumes and makes them available to the 
> electorate.  [how or where should the resumes be published flg]
> 
> 
> * BALLOT
> 
> - we will describe a paper ballot for ease of visualization.  If the 
> ballot is implemented electronically the system must provide verifiable 
> results that are consistent with the provisions of the paper ballot we 
> describe.
> 
> - the ballot shall be a single piece of paper with the date and place of 
> the election, the name of the jurisdiction, the office to be filled, and 
> each candidate's name arranged in alphabetical order, a place for the 
> voter to mark the ballot, and no other information.
> 
There are STRONG arguments against alphabetical order - particular list 
positions attract voters.

Normally need room for write-ins.

Can need to support oddities such as electing three members for a board - 
I had to vote on exactly that this month.
> 
> * VOTING
> 
> - each member of the electorate may cast a single ballot.
> 
> - each voter may mark the ballot to select a single candidate, or
> 
> - each voter may mark as many candidates as desired with a weighting 
> value between zero (0) and nine (9), where the higher the weighting 
> value assigned to a candidate, the stronger the voter's support for that 
> candidate.  If a voter gives two candidates the same weighting value, 
> the weighting values cancel each other and both candidates are assigned 
> a weighting value of zero.

Equal approval rating should be permitted (IRV chokes on such, but IRV should
be rejected for other reasons).
> 
> - by making a list of the candidates the voter approves, in which case 
> the candidates are listed in order of preference.  If the first 
> candidate on the list does not get sufficient first place votes for 
> election, that candidate is dropped from the list and the second 
> candidate moves into the first position on that ballot.  In this case, 
> since anyone may nominate anyone else, voters may write the name of 
> their candidate on the ballot.

UNacceptable.  Ranking is appropriate, but do it more like the weighting 
described above.

Anyway, while bullet voting should be permitted, there should not be more 
than one other method, such as ranking or weighting.
> 
> [This item was challenged, with the following statement:
> 
> "REJECT - this has at least the smell of IRV.  Condorcet uses the same 
> ballot but shows more interest in honoring voter desires."
> 
> The challenge provides no grounds, except for a purported odor, nor does 
> it specify how the item should be restated.]
> 
If IRV tempts, join me on Condorcet, which uses the same ballot but does 
not have the same failure.  As an example A is popular below (and 
Condorcet would see A's popularity), but IRV would not elect A without 
more first-place votes:

28 B>A>C
25 D>A>E
24 F>A>G
23 A>B>C
> 
> VOTE COUNTING
> 
> - where a voter may only vote for a single candidate, the candidate 
> receiving the greatest number of votes wins.
> 
> - where voters assign their personal weighting value to each candidate, 
> the candidate that received the greatest cumulative total of weighted 
> votes wins.

You describe Range rating here.  Ranking is a method worth mentioning.
> 
> --- ... --- ... --- ... --- ... --- ... --- ... --- ... --- ...
> 
> The foregoing assertions are intended as a start.  They are all open to 
> challenge, improvement and restatement.  As the auctioneer says, "It 
> doesn't matter where we start.  It's where we end up that counts."
> 
> 
> The following are questions and comments raised by reading your post and 
> some of Juho's material:
> 
> 1) Since the nominator and nominee must be in the electorate, should 
> there be a (length of) residency requirement?

Sure.
> 
> 2) What does "accessible to all, but not especially publishable." mean? 
>  Is there a reason to obstruct publication?  If so, it should be 
> described in the list.
> 
Was not suggesting hiding information - just avoiding overly expensive 
publication.
> 
> 
> re: "A goal here is to, usually, get a reasonable quantity of candidates:
> 
> * Perhaps aiming for at least five whenever at least that many wish to 
> be candidates - anything working to limit to two major backers (parties) 
> is unacceptable.  Twenty should be acceptable, but too many to have as a 
> goal.
> 
> * Number of nominators required to nominate a candidate seems like 
> primary control toward this goal"
> 
> Should the number of nominators be related to the population?  In the U. 
> S., the number of nominators adequate for Wyoming, with a population of 
> a little over 500,000, would probably produce an excess in California, 
> with a population of over 36 million.
> 
Yes, population counts.  Experience also counts - if unreasonably few or 
many candidates happen often, adjust.
> 
> 
> re: "Write-ins belong.  Think on a simplification for counting: Treat 
> write-ins as if a candidate:
> 
> * Usually this will verify that there are not enough to affect results.
> 
> * When there are too many write-ins, redo the count with each such name 
> treated as a separate candidate."
> 
> In an environment where anyone may nominate anyone, is there an 
> advantage in having write-in votes?  Those who wish to submit a write-in 
> vote are not inhibited from nominating their preferred candidate.  If 
> they do so, they enhance the opportunity for their preference to achieve 
> election because others can consider their preference BEFORE the election.
> 
Candidate lists NEED establishment X days before election to allow 
planning and thinking.  Then unplanned events can create need for changes 
(e.g., candidate dies).

My words about a write-in method were perhaps too detailed to bother with 
here.
> 
> 
> "- if trust is required in the area for which the person is nominated, 
> support of at least 100 persons in addition to the nominator, expressed 
> by email or in some ot    her form."
> 
> How does the support of 100 persons establish trustworthiness from the 
> people's point of view?  Any Mafia Don can get 100 persons to support 
> him, and, from the perspective of Mafia members, the Don may be 
> trustworthy, but the public probably would not find him so.  The same is 
> true of union members, Baptists and partisans of all stripes.
> 
I want a set of nominators, which really attends to this problem, though 
whether the count should be over or under 100 is controlled by other needs.
> 
> "* Alternately, the preceding process is used to select those who will 
> be candidates for election.  Then, after these candidates are presented 
> to the voters, an election determines the winner."
> 
> Does this not open the door to unnecessary confusion?  We should decide 
> whether we are considering a nominating mechanism or an election 
> mechanism.  For my part, I'd prefer that we concentrate our efforts on 
> the nominating process.  When that takes shape, we can discuss the 
> electoral process.
> 
Actually they can get mixed.  One set of rules for single offices such as 
mayors and governors; perhaps a different set for electing a bunch of 
senators in a single race.
> 
> Fred
-- 
  davek at clarityconnect.com    people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
  Dave Ketchum   108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY  13827-1708   607-687-5026
            Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
                  If you want peace, work for justice.