[EM] Idea Proposal Listening Democracy

[fsimmons at pcc.edu]

Dodgson came up with Asset Voting, and I'm sure that is what Lomax was referring to, but Asset Voting is not the method commonly called Dodgson's Method, hence the confusion.

> 
> 2010/4/21 Andrew Myers 
> 
> > On 7/22/64 2:59 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> >
> > However, I strongly urge people who attempt to analyze the situation
> > and to propose reforms to:
> >
> > 1. Keep it simple. An extraordinarily powerful system for fully
> > proportional representation consisting of a seemingly-simple 
> tweak on
> > Single Transferable Vote was proposed in 1883 or so by Charles
> > Dodgson (Lewis Carroll). If a simple system that is 
> **obviously** far
> > more democratic doesn't attract notice for more than a hundred 
> years,> what chance does something more complicated and dodgier (i.e.,
> > involving lots of unknowns) have?
> >
> >
> > This description is misleading. It omits that there are no 
> known good
> > algorithms for implementing this method: the computational 
> complexity of
> > Dodgson's voting method is prohibitive. In fact, it was not 
> even known until
> > a few years ago, when the problem was shown to be complete for 
> parallel> access to an NP oracle (class Theta_2^p).
> >
> > http://www.springerlink.com/content/wg040716q8261222/
> >
> > This result means it is extremely far from being usable in 
> practice. Unless
> > P=NP, there are no polynomial-time algorithms for deciding 
> elections with
> > Dodgson's method.
> >
> > -- Andrew
> >
> > Huh? Dodgson's method is asset voting. If I'm not mistaken, he 
> did not put
> any time limit on the convention - vote holders could refuse to 
> delegatetheir votes. Other Asset systems mandate vote transfers 
> under certain
> circumstances (elimination-style, to prevent games of chicken of "you
> endorse me", "no, you endorse me"). However, in either case, 
> it's still a
> decidable process.
> 
> If you want tweaks to Asset to promote dialog: you can mandate 
> some form of
> accessibility to communication, either vertically (between a 
> voter/proxy and
> their proxy/metaproxy) and/or horizontally (between the voters/direct
> subproxies for a given proxy). I think that vertical 
> accessibility to
> communication should be mandatory, and all vertical 
> communication should be
> accessible (though perhaps anonymized) horizontally. This would 
> mean that
> every level could function as a deliberative body.
> 
> Jameson Quinn
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: > electorama.com/attachments/20100421/31bcc585/attachment.html>
> ------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Election-Methods mailing list
> Election-Methods at lists.electorama.com
> http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods-
> electorama.com
> 
> End of Election-Methods Digest, Vol 70, Issue 44
> ************************************************
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20100421/c6f32d64/attachment-0003.htm>