[EM] Burlington Vermont repeals IRV 52% to 48%

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax abd at lomaxdesign.com
Sat Mar 6 18:24:52 PST 2010

At 03:31 PM 3/6/2010, robert bristow-johnson wrote:

>i don't get it.  just because the party i most identify with proffers
>6 candidates (as does two or three other parties) doesn't mean that
>i, as a independently-minded voter, care if all of those candidates
>are elected.  if i "approve" of *all* of those candidates, it's only
>because of blind party affiliation.

Not necessarily. It might be because you recognize that, to implement 
a party agenda/platform -- if you care about that -- it takes more 
than single elected seats.

>but what if there is *one* (or maybe two) of those candidates that i
>take an affirmative interest in seeing elected?

By not supporting other candidates from the same party, you are 
reducing the power of the candidates you do support.

Hey! How about asking the candidate you clearly support for advice. 
What do you think the candidate would say?

And if you expect you would not like the advice, just how much do you 
"support" this candidate?

I'd greatly prefer nonpartisan representation, but I know of only one 
way to truly get it: Asset Voting. STV is not terribly far from it, 
though, and neither would be Reweighted Range Voting or Proportional 
Approval Voting. Asset, though, is about perfect. You can vote for 
your favorite, period, no other votes are necessary. And then your 
favorite decides what to do with your vote; if the favorite gets a 
quota, the favorite is immediately elected. If there is more than a 
quota, the favorite has some votes to redistribute, it's like what I 
said, asking your favorite what to do.

The original Asset was a tweak on STV; Lewis Carroll realized that 
most voters were, in fact, like you, Robert. They knew their 
favorite. With ordinary STV, then, good chance their vote was wasted. 
Why not use it? Other voters, I think, with his system, could specify 
a preference order, but if the ballot became exhausted, I think, the 
vote would return to the favorite for distribution. That results in 
maximum representation for you, controlled by someone you most 
trusted, out of all possibilities. No wasted votes.

It continues to boggle my mind that people don't get excited and 
start jumping up and down when they hear about Asset. But, obviously, 
they don't. Carroll published his pamphlet in about 1884. Forgotten 
for a long, long time, the significance missed, and the possibilities missed. 

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list