[EM] SODA

[Jameson Quinn]

2012/1/22 MIKE OSSIPOFF <nkklrp at hotmail.com>

>  Jameson:
>
> SODA can be described to someone in a brief way that people accept. In a
> recent convefrsation, I described SODA, and the person considered it
> acceptable. You're speciflying the rules in too much detail. The
> street-description, and the petition-language, needn't be the legal
> language (though that should be available upon request). Likewise, for
> MTAOC or MCAOC, or AOC, people won't demand
> to see the computer program, but it will be available to the person who
> wants to look at it. The person who wouldn't accept a
> computer program also wouldn't ask to read it.
>
> So here's how I described SODA to that person:
>
> It's like Approval, but, if you vote only for one person, you can
> optionally check a box indicating that you want that person
> to be able to add approval votes to your ballot, on your behalf, if s/he
> doesn't win. S/he will have previously published a ranking
> of candidates to show the order in which s/he would give such delegated
> approvals.
>

Good description.


>
> That's it. That brief descriptionl tells how the method works.
>
> As I said yesterday, it seems to me that it would be much more
> publicly-accepable if the default assumption is non-delegation.
> If someone wants to delegate, they can check the box to indicate that.
>

One main advantage of SODA is that the laziest possible voter, the one who
just checks one candidate and goes home, has a vote which is essentially as
strategically powerful as any. Thus, I prefer delegation by default. But I
certainly wouldn't fight about it, and I'd happily embrace your version.


>
> I'd like SODA to be a bit fancier: Why should delegation only b e
> available to the person who has only voted for one candidate? Say you vote
> for several candidates. Each candidate has a delegation box by hir name. If
> you want to, you can designate as delegate any
> candidate for whom you've voted. (but you can only deleglate just one
> candidate)
>
> As in your version, s/he can add to your ballot approvals for candidates
> for whom you haven't voted, as long as your resulting approval set doesn't
> skip any candidates in hir publicized ranking.
>
> Disadvantage: It loses some of SODA's simplicity. I understand that the
> "S" in SODA is for "simple".
>

Exactly. In particular, it loses the ballot simplicity, and thus becomes
arguably worse than plurality in that way (ie, more rather than less
possible to unintentionally spoil a ballot in some way). Also, the
summability, and the complexity of strategic possibilities in the
delegation phase (although not, I think, the outcome; but I'm not sure)
both suffer significantly.


>
> As you said, the optional-ness of the delegation should avoid any
> complaint of undemocratic-ness. But of couise opponents
> will still try to use that complaint.
>
> I'll mention SODA (simple or more elaborate) along with the other FBC/ABE
> methods, any time I suggest new methods more complicated than Approval.  Of
> course sometimes you only have time to mention Approval.
>

Thank you.

Jameson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20120122/aa479483/attachment-0002.htm>