[EM] APR: Vote-wasting questions from Kristofer

[steve bosworth]

> To: stevebosworth at hotmail.com
> From: km_elmet at t-online.de
> Subject: Vote-wasting questions
> Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 22:36:08 +0100

Kristofer asked Steve: 
[....]> 
K: > - What does it mean for a method to not waste any votes, as you define it?
> 
S:  I see a citizen's vote as wasted to some degree to the extent that it does not do what APR does.  APR enables each voting citizen to guarantee that her one vote will continue to count in the legislative assembly both quantitatively and qualitatively. Firstly, it will count mathematically through the weighted vote earned by the one rep who that citizen has helped to elect.  Consequently, this rep is also most likely to be seen by this citizen also as most accurately (qualitatively) representing her own scale of values.
 
In this context, each citizen's votes in plurality systems like those in the USA and UK can be guaranteed only of her one vote being recorded as cast for one of the candidates running in her electoral district.   Her vote may have been given to a losing candidate, in which case she will not be represented in the assembly.  Even if her vote has helped the winning candidate to win, she may not see that candidate as the one in the country who would represent her most accurately.  Even if she does like the elected candidate, her vote would not give this representative any more power in the assembly if this winning candidate received more than one vote more than he needed to win the plurality election.  

K:> - What does it mean for a method to "needlessly waste votes" (as you
> said about VoteFair)? Is that distinct from simply wasting votes?
S:  The above illustrations of ways that plurality can waste votes are "needless" because APR offers a practical alternative.
 
K: > - Consider this single-winner method: "Pick a ballot at random and elect
> the candidate who is listed first on it." Does that method waste votes?
S:  No.  As far as I know, every single-winner method must waste votes in the above sense.  APR avoids such waste partly by being multi-winner.
> 
K:> - Do there exist deterministic (non-random) single-winner methods that
> do not waste votes as you define it? If so, could you give one?
S: Not that I know of.
> 
> -km

 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20151119/bcb67b0c/attachment.htm>