[EM] IRV / RCv advances

[Richard Lung]

Regarding the quota, one of my four averages (in FAB STV) is the 
Harmonic Mean quota which is the average of the Droop and Hare quotas, 
which I invented in order to achieve a more representative quota. (I 
won't go into details here.) Ranked voting is indeed essential, because 
order is essential. Order in the vote and proportion in the count are 
essential, because they are essential to mathematics, not to mention 
civilisation, itself.
Order and proportion, the bases of science, have become political 
footballs. Electoral science was founded in the age of the Enlightenment 
and has foundered in this electoral age of the Benightenment.

I say this only as helpful advice. I don't mind if you don't take it.
Good wishes.
from
Richard Lung.

On 16/07/2018 21:40, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> Asset is totally out-of-the-box. It was reinvented on the Election 
> Methods mailing list in the 1990s, and by Warren Smith, who coined the 
> term "Asset Voting." Asset was designed to make STV work far better. 
> It works well if the voter only states the favorite, and, in fact, my 
> own analysis came to be that adding more candidates simply complicates 
> the process with no benefit.
>
> The concept of a voting system that simply allows the voter to name 
> their most-trusted candidate, with nothing more needed, is definitely 
> not how people think!
>
> You think that ranked choice is "essential" but that comes from an 
> assumption of contested elections. Asset with a Hare quota creates 
> fully cooperative elections. Nobody loses. Depending on specific 
> rules, the election might run a seat short. I actually prefer that to 
> using the Droop quota, which then creates wasted votes. With the Hare 
> quota, votes might seem "wasted" but only because those holding them 
> don't get it together to create a seat. Natural consequences, and it 
> becomes possible to allow a seat to be elected later, and it's even 
> possible to use the "electoral college" that Asset creates to allow 
> some level of direct democracy.
>
> Asset used for single-winner elections would find a majority or simply 
> fail until the electors get it together. They eventually will, that's 
> history!
>
> Asset can create a winner or winners that are not even on the ballot. 
> And, in fact, Asset doesn't need printed ballots and doesn't need 
> restricted candidate lists, but for simplicity I'd require candidate 
> registration.
>
> http://rangevoting.org/Asset.html
>
> Warren's version of Asset was needlessly complicated, and he was still 
> thinking in terms of trying to select the "best" candidates using 
> amalgamation. Asset can do this much more directly and intelligently.
>
> Basically, if Asset is run properly, all voters are represented by a 
> person they freely chose (from among those willing to serve), either 
> actually by that person or -- for most elected seats -- by someone 
> approved by the person they chose. I call the collection of candidates 
> receiving any votes the "electoral college," because this does 
> resemble the original U.S. electoral college.
>
> Again, Warren, writing that page, was still thinking in terms of a 
> party system. Asset could be truly revolutionary, making the party 
> system unnecessary. Most people, hearing about Asset for the first 
> time, simply don't get that with no wasted votes, there is no need for 
> strategy, no need to campaign, even, so no need for money to run for 
> office. Leaders will emerge, for sure, but will be clearly responsible 
> to those who vote for them.
>
> I expect that ballots with names on them would disappear. With Asset, 
> you can decide to vote only for someone who will actually talk with 
> you, whom you know. Those who are actually elected will know which 
> electors actually voted for them, so there is, again, responsibility, 
> and a communication network would be naturally created. You can talk 
> with your elector, the one you voted for, and your elector can talk to 
> the seat, generally. Electors who only have a few votes will turn them 
> over to other electors, so the chain of communication can become 
> larger, but that's normal. It can still be clear and reliable.
>
>
> On 7/16/2018 3:34 PM, Richard Lung wrote:
>>
>> Thankyou for troubling to make so many comments. Have never heard of 
>> Asset, even if it goes as far back as 1880. Have heard Charles 
>> Dodgson mentioned but forget (am old). Indeed am unfamiliar with the 
>> host of variations on methods. But have a few basic guidelines, which 
>> I trust. (It surprises me but does not perturb me that many experts 
>> don't think so.) A single-order vote, the x-marks the spot vote is 
>> not sufficient for effective voting. A many-order vote (ranked 
>> choice) is essential. Likewise a single majority count is far less 
>> accurate than a many-majority count (like the Droop quota). You will 
>> perceive a pattern here: the general system is a many order vote for 
>> a many majority count.
>>  from
>
>