[EM] Sequential Proportional Approval - A Better Proportional Representation Electoral Method (was: SAV)

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 02:24 PM 5/21/2010, Jameson Quinn wrote:
>And for simplicity, the summable method is not the official count, 
>but it is the official grounds for a recount. The statute says: "the 
>official result is the most likely result for [the process described 
>above], calculated using fractional votes. The summed results 
>(correlation matrix and number-of-approvals-versus-candidates 
>matrix) are published ASAP, and if 2 of the 3 biggest local math 
>departments determine that those summed ballots are within N votes 
>of indicating a different result than the official results, then you 
>have a recount." Obviously when the summable results are published 
>before the official centralized count, anybody (or any newspaper) 
>with the algorithm can calculate the almost-certain "provisional 
>winners". That way, you get all of the verifiability and speed 
>advantages of summability, but none of the statutory complexity.

Statutory "simplicity" won at the cost of lawsuits over the meaning 
of "ASAP," "biggest," "local" and "math department."

With public ballot imaging, lots of things become possible. The 
election commission can scan all the ballots and transmit them for 
central counting at the same time as it publishes the ballot images. 
Counting ballots by hand, sorting, for example, is much easier if it 
is not the actual ballots being counted but images of them. (Printed 
or otherwise). If the counting process can be verified by anyone, and 
if ballots are serialized (probably when the ballot boxes are 
opened), it's simple to correlate the work of people so that public 
verification can be efficiently done by many people doing a little 
work. Media would probably use computer recognition of the ballots, 
to get fast results, and so would the election commissions. Best of 
both worlds.

I like Asset because it solves the proportional representation 
problem, nailing it down, leaving no room for real dispute over 
proportionality, and creating transparancy and effectively full 
representation. It's really an extension of the electoral college 
device, only with unrestricted representation (full representation of 
all who vote) in the college. Delegable proxy would do this directly, 
without a "college," but would then lose secret ballot, unless you 
have computer security systems, which then requires trusting those 
who maintain them (as well as those who programmed them).

But short of Asset, PAV seems easy, simple to vote, and only the 
counting gets complex. That's where complexity should be! It's not 
complex to understand, it just requires more complicated handling of 
ballots, for hand counting, and more transmission of information, and 
I'm suggesting that the information should be transmitted anyway, so 
that the election can be verified by anyone (probably in part, 
collaborating with others, independently in various groups that are 
interested).

But without Asset, there will always be significant wasted votes, 
unless you force voters to make decisions that they are not ready to make.