[EM] Asset Voting

[Greg Nisbet]

On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 6:40 AM, Raph Frank <raphfrk at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 7:22 AM, Greg Nisbet <gregory.nisbet at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Iterative systems are based on "conditional" votes, meaning their
>> relative values change with regard to what has "happened". For
>> example, your vote shifting to a less preferred candidate in IRV is a
>> result of a more preferred candidate being permanently excluded from
>> victory.
>>
>> The consequences of this are dire.
>
> No candidate is permanently excluded in standard Asset.  However, some
> variants (the more transparent ones) do emulate a PR-STV like
> elimination scheme.

This is true. I do not think, however, that it dodges the criticism
because of this. A conditional ballot is simply in response to some
change. Under asset, that simply consists of transferring the votes
however the candidate wishes.
>
>> Let's put this in perspective.
>>
>> Asset Voting is equivalent to STV with one large difference: only
>> O(candidates) ballots are possible as opposed to O(candidates!) with
>> STV.
>
> The trick with Asset is that there should be more candidates.  The
> idea is to find a candidate who has the same viewpoint as you.  The
> lack of expressiveness is offset by a greater number of candidate
> choices.

Interesting point...

Will there be factorial as many candidates?

Since the voters have less power now, is it better to switch power
over to the candidates?

>
> Under asset, there are 2 types of candidates, the only who want to be
> elected, and the ones who only intend to be electors.

If that is the case, then under STV every voter is an elector. There
are still more "electors" in STV than in Asset.
>
> In fact, you could have a situation where people who stand in the
> election are prohibited to be nominated.
>
>> Even worse, these are not even revealed on the ballot. The voter
>> gets no control over reallocation, the candidates are not bound to
>> anything. I argue that restricting the domain of expression is not the
>> best way to go about representing the will of the voters. Voters
>> should be allowed to pick and choose among the candidates at will.
>
> I think a hybrid PR-STV/Asset system would be superior to pure Asset.
>
> In this the voters can rank their choices, but also name a candidate
> who will handle their exhausted ballots.
>
That sounds interesting.