<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>I'll be brief. Asset is often not understood.<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/12/2019 10:10 PM, Michael Rouse
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:fc352753-5832-a2d8-f5c1-78a5a366b493@mrouse.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<p>Kicking around a few ideas here, but assuming you have a number
of candidates running for a fixed but limited number of seats in
a legislature, how about:</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>1. Require each candidate to publicly rank all other candidates
in the race before the election.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In an Asset election "candidates" are actually candidates to be
electors. Most of them will not even intend to become "seats."
Asset is not a "race." There is no actual competition, only
cooperation and collaboration to create seats.</p>
<p>In a large public Asset election, as many as 1% of the electorate
may be willing to serve as electors, i.e., as public voters. So if
the electorate is a million people, the "candidates" would be
required to rank all 10,000 candidates? I don't think so.</p>
<p>Asset is terminally simple. It is actually negotiation and
deliberation, not aggregation, and to elect a seat simply requires
the agreement of electors who "transfer" a quota of votes. So all
seats have the <b>unanimous</b> approval, directly or indirectly,
of a quota of voters.</p>
<p><b><font size="+2">Unanimous?</font></b> Let that word sink in.</p>
<p>"Race" is language from politics that would become obsolete with
Asset. If I wanted to choose a proxy for some business purpose,
what would I think about someone "competing" for my choice?</p>
<p>Let me suggest that I would think that this person has some
ulterior motive and I would be unlikely to trust them. Yet we
expect those who represent us in public affairs to "run" for the
office. And then we get crazy results. Why are we surprised?</p>
<p>I'm leaving the rest, but this is all utterly unnecessary and
would break Asset if implemented.<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:fc352753-5832-a2d8-f5c1-78a5a366b493@mrouse.com">
<p>2. Allow voters to rank <b>one or more </b>candidates in
order of preference on their ballot (if you bother ranking
someone it's assumed you are okay with electing them -- if you
don't want someone elected, you don't rank them, kind of like in
Approval).</p>
<p>3. Pick the group of candidates (equal to the number of open
positions) appearing on the largest number of <b>unique</b>
ballots. This is the most interesting step to me, since it seems
like it would be the most computationally-intensive step. In the
(probably) unusual case that more than one group has the same
number of unique ballots, there are several easy tie-breakers,
so I'll ignore it as a distraction for now.<br>
</p>
<p>4. Looking at each ballot, if one or more candidates ranked on
it are in the winning group in step 3, the highest ranked
winning candidate gets the asset. <br>
</p>
<p>5. If a ballot does not contain a candidate that is part of the
winning group, look at the rank order of the top candidate on
the ballot, and transfer the asset (votes) to the highest ranked
person who is in the winning group.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>As a brief explanation of each step, <br>
</p>
<p>1. Allows a complete ranking so no ballot is completely wasted.
Plus, this information is useful in itself -- if a candidate
ranks highly someone I detest, I can either not vote for them,
or rank enough candidates so it's unlikely my vote will be
transferred.<br>
</p>
<p>2. Allows voters to pick however many candidates without
splitting their vote (some edge cases are possible, where a
lower rank on a ballot could knock out a preferred candidate,
which is why you don't rank someone unless you approve of them).</p>
<p>3. Maximizes the number of people whose vote goes to good
candidate (good in the sense that the voter is content with the
result).</p>
<p>4. Minimizes votes "wasted" by padding someone's victory -- a
person with twice as many votes has twice the assets to wield.</p>
<p>5. Gives votes that would otherwise be wasted to the least
offensive candidate in the winning group.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>One nice aspect is the lower bound -- where the number of
winning candidates equals just one -- is just the Approval
winner.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Like I mentioned, just musing about things, though I would be
interested in other's thoughts.</p>
<p>Mike<br>
</p>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>