[EM] Who is your representative under Asset Voting?

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 06:10 PM 11/16/2010, Jan Kok wrote:
>On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
><abd at lomaxdesign.com> wrote:
> > If I'm represented, I want to know exactly who represents me!
>
>Abd, I've heard you say that several times over the years. Why is that
>important to you?

Because I cannot know if I'm represented if I don't know who is doing 
it. Okay, maybe I see that all my ideas are presented? Unlikely.

The idea that I'm represented in electoral systems like we have is 
actually preposterous. What is represented is the electorate as a 
whole, not the individuals in it. It's a trick, it sounds democratic. 
But it isn't.

It's not terribly different from when the King appointed 
representatives for jurisdictions....

If I know who represents me, I can address my concerns to that 
person, or to someone who has contact or influence with that person.


> > Of all the systems I've seen, only Asset allows this, by creating 
> a public trail
> > between my vote and the election of seats.
>
>I would note that:
>
>- If you vote for someone who gets more than the quota, then the
>excess votes get passed on to help elect other candidates. So who did
>you elect? Who is your representative?

You elected your representative, the one you voted for, or the one 
your representative voted for. The contingency that your 
representative votes for more than one exists, but can be handled. I 
think it will probably be rare. If I have N votes to assign, I can 
gain maximum access to one whom I choose and give all my votes to, 
than by distributing them. I then distribute my influence, diluting 
it and making it less significant.

I have suggested that when an elector splits the votes, the elector 
design the vote splitting so that the bulk of votes from a precinct 
(electors should know what precincts their votes came from....) are 
assigned to a single candidate. If I gave a person my vote in the 
secret ballot election, and they assigned 90% of the votes from my 
precinct to one candidate (not being able to assign them all without 
wasting some in some way, as to how the elector wants to influence 
the outcomes), I do know who my rep is, who was elected with my vote, 
and the slop isn't important. And it really isn't terribly important 
if the figure was lower than 90%.

And this is the reason: I know who I voted for, and I chose someone 
to whom I have access. There is no good reason in asset to not do 
this. Asset allows people to vote for people they know personally. If 
you want access to the assembly, and find that it doesn't work to go 
to the seat who was elected with your vote, you'd go to your elector. 
If the elector is small-scale, your elector may go to the one the 
elector transferred votes to, etc.

If an assembly allows direct voting by electors, the electors become 
a penumbra of links that surround the assembly, improving access for 
individual citizens, who do, definitely, choose the electors without question.

>- If you vote for someone who gets less than the quota and has to pass
>on his votes, he may split those votes among more than one other
>candidate. Again, who did you elect?

I created a stupid elector, probably. I suffer the consequences, that 
is, my ideas and my interests will have lower access and influence. 
However, if vote splitting like that is desirable for some reason -- 
remember, these are public votes. The one receiving these indirect 
votes knows where they come from -- I've suggested that an elector 
who wants to set up this kind of visible representation would assign 
votes, specifying precincts. So, yes, you could largely, even in that 
case, track your vote to exactly where it was used. But, short of 
that, you can know that your vote did count, you might not know 
exactly whom it elected; if the elector split the votes among two 
candidates and didn't specify precinct assignments, then it might be 
that you could recognize that X% of your vote elected A and Y % of 
your vote elected B. That is still transparency and visibility.

Remember, if I don't like how my elector uses my vote, I'm totally 
free to change my vote next election. Or I can become an elector myself.

>- If you vote by secret ballot, then _you_ might know where your vote
>went (subject to the above uncertainties), but your representative
>won't have any way of knowing if he was elected in part by your vote.

That's right. However, you may, if you want to -- I would! -- 
personally know the person you vote for. That person may be expecting 
so many votes from so many people, because they will tell him or her. 
The elector knows, fairly well, I'd suggest, where his or her support 
is coming from. And from there on, the vote is completely visible. 
The representative knows what electors gave the rep any additional 
votes needed. That, ideally, creates access.

>- Suppose you are a Libertarian, but there are not enough Libertarian
>voters to elect a Libertarian candidate. Your vote eventually elects a
>Democrat or a Republican. Does that candidate "represent" you? I would
>say no, or at least, not very well.

Consider an asset assembly that allows direct voting by electors. I'd 
recommend that such assemblies be a single "district." The number of 
seats would be determined as an optimal number for efficient 
function. Suppose it is forty. Okay, any "party" with less than 2.5% 
of the electorate doesn't have enough votes to elect a seat. Unless 
they can get some votes from someone even less numerically prosperous.

Look the idea that an asset assembly is going to be dominated by two 
parties is ridiculous. Most people think of themselves as 
independents who only vote for a party because that might be their 
best option at the time that won't waste their vote. I'd obvious that 
many people don't primarily vote party affiliation.

But suppose that your only choice is a Democrat or Republican. You 
have your choice of the *person.* Asset Voting does away with the 
need for party affiliation to avoid wasted votes! You will need to 
compromise, perhaps, but ... that is intrinsic. Essentially, this is 
up to the electors. If your elector chose a seat, that's your 
representative. And, through your elector, you will have access.

Suppose you are an elector. What would you prefer, even though you 
are a Libertarian. A Democrat or Republican who knows that you voted 
for him or her, that you preferred him or her over other options open 
to you, or one of those who doesn't know this? Because you decided to 
waste your vote and the votes of those who voted for you, by not casting them.

But in Asset, I've assumed that the dregs can negotiate with each 
other, trying to find someone who will maximally represent them, and 
they need not be limited to the candidates. They can, effectively, 
"write in" a name. If they are limited to people registered as 
candidates, there should be hundreds or thousands of these.

And if direct voting is allowed, you can actually see your vote 
functioning in the assembly, whenever an elector votes directly. You 
can, if you want, see the effect of your single vote, if you voted 
for yourself and nobody else voted for you.

Mostly people won't bother with direct voting, my opinion, because 
they will have been able to truly choose someone who can do the best 
job. I don't see the job as "representing" the opinions of the 
voters, as much as representing their interests, as the elector/seat 
understands them. I expect to see electors voting their own opinion, 
it doesn't make sense to try to guess how their supporters would vote 
on each issue. But I'd also expect an elector, if the elector is to 
maintain voting power, to communicate with the voters regularly. It's service.