[EM] Asset Voting vs. other methods

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

There is a very simple voting method that "voting systems" experts 
commonly neglect, because it is not a "voting system" as in Arrow's 
theorem, and neglecting this leads to no end of paradoxes and 
unresolvable difficulties.

It is called majority rule, and the practical application is that no 
decision is made democratically that has not been explicitly supported 
by a majority of those voting (and then there are various rules that 
deal with details.)

If one must determine a result from a single poll, a condition rejected 
by Robert's Rules of Order unless absolutely necessary, then score 
probably is best, but when we look at the real-world situations where 
that requirement is established, the necessity is only a matter of 
habit. Instead of submitting a complex question multiple-choice question 
for direct vote, one could create an Asset electoral college to make 
negotiation efficient by reducing the discussion group size. And the 
Asset college could then use ordinary deliberative process to review all 
possibities, and that college could use polling methods to speed up the 
process, requiring a majority vote to create a decision.

Decisions actually approved by only a plurality are not democratic 
decisions, not under Robert's Rules. They even consider a ballot with 
any mark on it as valid, even if the intent cannot be deciphered. And if 
a majoritiy of ballots don't approve a "winner," the election fails and 
the whole process must be repeated. Not this "top two" bullshit.

Ultimately, the attempt to make "democracy" more efficient by 
disregarding the requirement for a majority approval of a result sets up 
a kind of fascism and has historically enabled serious, deep, and highly 
destructive fascism. Yeah, but they made the trains run on time.

Until the full impact of disregarding basic democracy was felt, when 
almost the whole society was demolished.

I have used score to make personal decisions. Ask a series of questions 
about options, weight the questions according to importance, then sum 
the utilities.

And if I don't like the result, I throw it out and do what I choose. We 
do best with Yes/No decisions, because we can assess the relative merits 
by affinity and aversion. Score, a brilliant polling method, can advise 
us, but we are foolish if we let it deprive us of choice.

(I have seen approval used in an assembly with a very controversial 
proposal to change what had been practice for decades. The status quo 
probably had the firm support of two-thirds of those present. But when 
the assembly saw that there was another proposal with unanimous minus 
one support, only one disapproval, then the motion was made to change to 
that. And it was unanimously approved.

That is how real democracy works, in a functional organization. There 
was only one actual vote, on a single proposal, by an electorate 
informed though discussion and polling.

We are so accustomed to the nonsense that passes for democracy in common 
public elections, that we don't realize what is possible.

On 4/12/2019 8:45 PM, Forest Simmons wrote:
> This message is a further comment on Lomax' recent post.
>
> I agree that Asset voting is often the simplest entirely adequate 
> solution.  But it depends on what kind of alternatives are under 
> consideration; are they sentient beings or merely congress critters or 
> inanimate objects, like competing locations for company headquarters.
>
> Hence the need for other kinds of election methods that can deal with 
> alternatives that cannot consciously participate in the deliberations 
> of the voters.
>
> That's my best answer to Lomax.  Thanks for the question!
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20190423/70930f6d/attachment.html>