[EM] [RangeVoting] A procedure for handling large numbers of candidates using scorevoting with primaries and runoffs.

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

Asset Voting blows the whole issue out of the water.

I've assumed that Asset would be most functional if the ballot has no 
names on it at all. A booklet is published and available at the 
polling place with names or codes to enter for listed candidates. A 
registration fee for candidates is sufficient to pay for listing in 
the booklet. The listing is just identification, so that a voter can 
unambiguously vote for a candidate that they have chosen.

With a state with 10 million voters, there might well be 100,000 
candidates or even more.

In asset, it's only necessary to vote for one person. While Warren's 
original Asset system was hi-resolution Range, it's vastly overkill. 
It's not necessary for representation, and Asset is basically a 
parliamentary system, it creates representation for the purpose of 
completing elections.

I've mostly written about Asset as a method for creating accurate 
proportional representation, where every voter, at least in theory, 
is represented by a candidate they chose, or (probably far more 
often) by a candidate chosen by a candidate they chose, directly or 
indirectly). If it's done right, voters will actually know whom they 
elected, *their* representative. And if they vote as I expect voting 
to go in a mature question, they can actually talk with the candidate 
they actually voted for, who has publicly transferred the vote to the 
person actually elected. That's access to power, *for every voter 
capable of communicating civilly, or at least civilly enough for the 
candidate who got the vote.

Asset can be used single-winner, though. I just think that once one 
can elect a proportional assembly, that truly represents the *entire 
electorate*, direct elections of office-holders becomes an obviously 
Bad Idea. Much better to hire them, let the assembly hire and fire.

Take a hint from business.