[EM] IRV-recent discussions

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

On 7/19/2018 5:18 PM, steve bosworth wrote:
>
> IRV-recent discussions
>
> [...]I would also very much appreciate it if each contributor would 
> help me test my claim that only EPR wastes no votes in the sense 
> defined as follows by the 2^nd paragraph in my EPR article:
>
> We see a citizen’s one vote as being /wasted/ quantitatively to the 
> degree that it fails proportionately to add to the voting power of the 
> councilmember whom she has helped to elect.A citizen’s vote is 
> /wasted/ qualitatively when it fails to increase the voting power of 
> the member she sees as most /fit/ for the office, e.g. the one she 
> trusts most to speak, work, and vote in the council as she would do 
> herself if she had the time, energy, skills and opportunity to do 
> so.^8 Her vote is ‘partly wasted’ qualitatively when her vote is 
> instead given to a member who is less valued by her.
>
>  1. Please explain how the voting method you currently most favor does
>     or does not waste votes as defined above.
>
The definition is narrow. Asset clearly, however, empowers the elector 
the voter has chosen. If the system maintains the electoral college and 
if electors can reassign their votes, the power would be continuous. If 
there are excess votes given to the seat, the seat may either reassign 
them, thus exercising power through another seat chosen by the seat, or, 
if such delegation is not allowed, the seat may ask the elector to 
reassign them. In every case, the one chosen by the voter has the power 
to use the vote. No vote is wasted.

Asset is very unlike other voting system. It is collaborative, not 
competitive.

(It is possible, by the way, that voters would be able to audit the 
election, to personally verify that their vote actually went to the 
elector they chose. Crypto. But this is a separate issue.)

>  1. Also, do you agree with Balinski & and Laraki’s argument that
>     grading candidates is more meaningful, informative, and discerning
>     than ranking them (or by marking them in any other
>     way)?Personally, I see this claim as valid given the observation
>     that rankings can be deduced from evaluations (e.g. EXCELLENT,
>     VERY GOOD, etc.) but evaluations (grades) cannot be deduced from
>     rankings.
>
Score ballots are always more informative. Scoring allows ranking but 
ranking does not allow scoring, as stated. The number of possible scores 
should either be high, or at least the equal to the number of candidates 
on the ballot plus one. That is, the voter should be able to rank all 
candidates plus at least one write-in.

That is not relevant to Asset, designed to allow the voter to designate 
a single choice of best representative. Because the system does not 
waste votes, it is not necessary to complicate the ballot and further 
process and analysis by allowing alternate choices. (But a candidate 
elector might have a publicly designated alternate, to whom their votes 
go if they become disabled. So a voter can consider that in choosing 
whom to vote for.

However, I am opposed, by comparison, to single-winner elections; for 
choosing officers (executives), I would delegate that to the Assembly, 
which represents all the voters and may make choices by simple majority. 
It can also require supermajority, that's a rule choice, and Assemblies 
make their own rules. Score ballots, however, are excellent for polling, 
for quickly grabbing the sense of the electorate or Assembly. A final 
decision, however, should always be ratified by the Assembly, majority 
required or no decision is made. Standard democratic deliberative 
process. And the Assembly can change it's mind at any time, kick the bum 
out, hire someone else. (No finding of "bum" is needed, it's simply a no 
confidence choice.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20180720/0376ba73/attachment.html>