<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
On 7/19/2018 5:18 PM, steve bosworth wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:VI1PR0601MB2509698017B38A8748C788F0B6520@VI1PR0601MB2509.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;"><!-- P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} --></style>
<div id="divtagdefaultwrapper"
style="font-size:14pt;color:#000000;font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;"
dir="ltr">
<p style="background: rgb(244, 244, 244); margin: 0in 0in 0pt;
line-height: 22.5pt; vertical-align: middle;">
<span style="color: black; font-size: 14pt;
mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri;
mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;"><font face="Calibri"> </font></span></p>
<p style="background: rgb(244, 244, 244); margin: 0in 0in 0pt;
line-height: 22.5pt; vertical-align: middle;">
<span style="color: black; font-size: 14pt;
mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri;
mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;"><font face="Calibri">IRV-recent
discussions</font></span></p>
<font face="Calibri">[...]</font><span style="color: black;
font-size: 14pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri;
mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";
mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family:
Calibri;"><font face="Calibri"> 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<sup>nd</sup> paragraph in my EPR article:</font></span>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;"><span style="line-height:
107%; font-size: 12pt;"><font face="Calibri">We see a
citizen’s one vote as being
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">wasted</i>
quantitatively to the degree that it fails proportionately
to add to the voting power of the councilmember whom she
has helped to elect.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>A citizen’s vote is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:
normal;">wasted</i> qualitatively when it fails to
increase the voting power of the member she sees as most
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">fit</i> 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.<sup>8</sup><span
style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Her vote is ‘partly wasted’ qualitatively when her
vote is instead given to a member who is less valued by
her.
</font></span></p>
<ol style="list-style-type: decimal; direction: ltr;">
<li style="color: black; font-size: 14pt; font-style: normal;
font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Please
explain how the voting method you </span><span
style="color: black; font-size: 14pt;
mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman"; mso-hansi-font-family:
Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri;">currently most
favor does or does not waste votes as defined above.</span></li>
</ol>
</div>
</blockquote>
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.<br>
<br>
Asset is very unlike other voting system. It is collaborative, not
competitive.<br>
<br>
(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.)<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:VI1PR0601MB2509698017B38A8748C788F0B6520@VI1PR0601MB2509.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com">
<div id="divtagdefaultwrapper"
style="font-size:14pt;color:#000000;font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;"
dir="ltr">
<ol style="list-style-type: decimal; direction: ltr;">
<li style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family:
"Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; font-style:
normal; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">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)?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>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.</span></li>
</ol>
</div>
</blockquote>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.)<br>
</body>
</html>