[EM] Remember Toby

[Jameson Quinn]

2011/6/8 robert bristow-johnson <rbj at audioimagination.com>

>
> On Jun 8, 2011, at 9:51 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote:
>
>  On Jun 8, 2011, at 1:32 PM, Juho Laatu wrote:
>>
>>> On 8.6.2011, at 16.15, Jameson Quinn wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1. Before the election, candidates (including declared write-ins) submit
>>>> full rankings of other candidates.
>>>>
>>> ...
>
> i still think this Asset thingie is crappy.  it is *immaterial* how
> candidates rank or value the other candidates.  the only thing that matters
> is how the electorate values the candidates.
>
>
Just curious: would you be happy if making your ballot delegable were
opt-in, rather than opt-out?

You consider delegation to be a negative. But many people would like their
vote to be delegable.

For instance, as somebody whose views are out of the US mainstream, I do not
expect my candidate to win. While of course I'd like to convince the
majority to agree with my (impeccably correct) views, I do not even wish I
could impose them undemocratically (except insofar as they accord with the
constitution and/or inalienable rights). I would, however, like my views to
have a spokesperson with a measure of democratic voice and power in accord
with the size of my faction. If I truly liked a candidate, I would regard it
as a positive benefit to give them my delegable vote, even if they ended up
using it exactly as I would have.

Furthermore, there are many voters for whom even an approval ballot is more
work than they want to give. This is not necessarily a matter of laziness;
perhaps the amount of work per candidate they consider appropriate for
deciding is actually much higher than for most voters. Allowing a simple
bullet vote to *optionally* implicitly vote on all candidates is a positive
benefit to such voters.

Finally, I have had serious conversations with people who seriously worry
about making a poor strategic choice, to the point where they'll pick
plurality over a better system, because at least the strongest strategy (in
a two-party duopoly) is unambiguous. Such people would prefer their ballot
strategy to be decided in the perfect-information environment that SODA
gives to the candidates.

And delegation is *100% optional*. If you don't want anyone delegating your
vote, you don't have to let them. If I and other voters want to allow our
votes to be delegated, for any of the perfectly good reasons above, why
should you have a right to stop that?

JQ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20110608/f9a5f720/attachment-0004.htm>