<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">At 01:23 PM 3/14/2007, Chris Benham wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I reject this on the same grounds that I reject the "candidate
withdrawal option" (in say IRV) and
"Asset Voting": I am only interested in single-winner methods where the
result is purely determined (as far as possible) by voters voting,
and not by the machinations of candidates/parties.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
To be consistent, Chris should likewise reject deliberative process,
and he should reject proxy voting. Asset Voting is merely proxy voting.
Further, he should reject all pre-election process, including the
processes by which candidates are nominated, as they are likewise
"the machinations of candidates/parties." Only pure voting would be
allowed. No consultation through coalitions of voters.
Public elections without such pre-election process are rather
difficult to imagine as being something desirable.
Further, Chris should reject parliamentary government, where leading
governmental officers are elected by representatives of the people
rather than directly.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
This like me saying "I don't like pepper and salt on my dessert" and
you replying "To be consistent,<br>
you should not put pepper and salt on your steak".<br>
<br>
Asset Voting is not "merely proxy voting". The voters are compelled to
choose candidates as their<br>
proxys, who then become privileged super-voters. And in any case I
don't support proxy voting<br>
for public political elections.<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">What would Chris think about Asset used for multiwinner elections?</pre>
</blockquote>
Bad, but less so.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> In
particular, we have proposed using Asset to create full proportional
representation, and have suggested that this could be used to create
an assembly which would have nearly all voters with a known
representative (known to the voter, and chosen by the voter directly
or indirectly), whom the voter's vote elected, and who would usually
represent a geographic district, completely independently of "party
machinations," unless the voter elects to chose candidates who are
party-affiliated. Because Asset wastes no votes, *anyone* can run and
receive votes without harm.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
A radical scheme that doesn't compromise voter sovereignty in the
election process would be<br>
to have the voters rank the candidates in large multi-member districts
and IRV-style eliminate<br>
candidates one at a time and transferring preferences until the desired
number of candidates <br>
remain. They are all elected, with the weight of their future votes in
the legislature being <br>
equal to their final vote tally.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">What's the problem? Is it the pedantic one of "Asset isn't an
election method as I define it," or is it more substantial?</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
For Abd, that is close enough.<br>
<br>
Chris Benham<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>