[EM] Remember Toby

[Dave Ketchum]

On Jun 8, 2011, at 1:32 PM, Juho Laatu wrote:
> On 8.6.2011, at 16.15, Jameson Quinn wrote:
>> 2011/6/8 Juho Laatu <juho4880 at yahoo.co.uk>
>> Here are some random observations about the SODA method.
>>
>> There should be a full definition of the method somewhere.
>>
>> I've posted a full definition. However, this definition included my  
>> additional step of recounting the top two without mutually- 
>> delegated votes. In further off-list conversation with Forest, I've  
>> realized that this addition, while it may be marginally helpful,  
>> does not fundamentally change the dynamics of the situation, and so  
>> is not worth the extra complexity. Here's the full definition  
>> without it:
>>
>> 1. Before the election, candidates (including declared write-ins)  
>> submit full rankings of other candidates. Equality and truncation  
>> (equal-bottom) is allowed in these rankings. These rankings are  
>> made public.
>
> I'm just wondering what the difference between a declared write-in  
> and a regular candidate is. Maybe declared write-ins are candidates  
> that have failed to meet some of the nomination criteria and that  
> therefore will not get their own row in the ballot sheet or will not  
> get a candidate number of their own (depends on what kind of ballots  
> are in use, but the point is that voter must write their full name  
> in the ballot). These declared write-ins must probably register  
> themselves anyway as candidates in order to officially declare their  
> preferences. Maybe votes to write-ins that have not officially  
> declared their preferences are not allowed in the election at all.  
> Or maybe votes to them are just always non-delegated approval votes.
>
Write-ins are a standard ability for voters in the US - simply supply  
candidate name on the ballot - sufficient for such write-ins to even  
win elections.  Among the reasons for using this ability are that the  
candidate was prevented from being nominated, without good reason for  
such.

SODA is permitting something similar to a partial nomination for its  
particular needs.
>>
>> 2. Voters submit approval ballots, with up to two write-ins. "Do  
>> not delegate" is a valid write-in.
>
> Your definition seems to define also the used ballot format. That's  
> ok although often the formal descriptions of methods don't cover  
> this. Note that most countries of the world don't use the write-in  
> option. Is this a recommendation that if they start using SODA they  
> should support write-ins in general or that they should have a write- 
> in slot to support the "do not delegate" feature?
>
Nothing said here of ballot format except for being Approval and  
capable of two write-ins.  "Do not delegate" is a command entered as  
if a write-in.
>>
>> 3. All approvals are counted for each candidate. Bullet votes for  
>> each candidate are also counted. These totals are made public.
>>
>> 4. After a brief period (probably a couple of weeks) for analyzing  
>> and discussing these first-round results, all candidates, in a  
>> simultaneous and temporarily-secret ballot, decide how many rank  
>> levels (from their initial ranking in step 1) to delegate to. They  
>> may not delegate to candidates they ranked at the bottom (since  
>> this is strategically identical to delegating to nobody and  
>> withdrawing from the race). If A delegates to B, a number equal to  
>> A's bullet votes is added to B's approval total.
>
> I note that
>
> - candidates must delegate all or no votes, and all to the same level

If X, in step 1, agreed to delegate to A>B>C and X received 7 bullet  
votes, and the negotiating calls for X to delegate to 2; then 2  
candidates, A&B, will each get 7 votes delegated.

Note that the voters knew of X delegating for 3 candidates - voters  
could not know of the later decision to delegate to only 2.
>
> - couple of weeks is a long time to wait for the results
>
> - those couple of weeks probably include lost of negotiations, maybe  
> to the level of agreeing how every candidate delegates (or at least  
> a group that has power enough to agree what the outcome is)
>
> - I guess "temporarily-secret" means that the final vote of each  
> candidate will be published afterwards
>
> - these rules assume one round of voting (i.e. not e.g. approvals  
> that could be extended step by step)
>
> - empty votes are not allowed (maybe not necessary to ban, and many  
> candidates could effectively cast an empty vote anyway, e.g. by not  
> approving anyone else but themselves)
>
>>
>> 5. The candidate with the highest approval total after step 4 wins.
>
> Depending on the environment the winner could be agreed already  
> before the second round, or alternatively all candidates would just,  
> one by one, cast the vote that they consider best, and the end  
> result could be a surprise.

I now fall back to SODA being Approval with a minor complication option:
      . Voter votes for those approved of.
      . Candidates each provide a list of those they will vote for and  
voter votes for candidate whose list attracts.

Dave Ketchum
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20110608/299c34ed/attachment-0004.htm>