<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Hybrid method, using runoffs. I'm not sure the complication is
necessary, over simple Asset, and "reasonable" is for the voters
to judge, in any Asset method.</p>
<p>But this is a good method.</p>
<p>The best voting systems are not deterministic.</p>
<p>Runoff voting is the widest- used "advanced method." In fact,
it's very old, standard democratic process simply keeps voting
until someone gets a majority. No eliminations. IRV went around
killing a method superior to IRV (because of what actually happens
in runoffs, and especially if write-ins are allowed in a runoff.
Simple top two runoff without write-ins is guaranteed to find a
simple and meaningless majority. People are suckers for words with
the core meaning gutted.</p>
<p>The runoff can be avoided if preferred and acceptable coincide,
and acceptable is a majority. But runoffs, especially with
write-is allowed, validate that a majority acceptance is informed,
not merely an artifact of appearances in the primary.</p>
<p>I still prefer to handle single-winner elections with an Asset
Assembly, majority of "effective proxies" required for completion.
The entire electorate is represented in the Electoral College and
could negotiate a winner. (The Asset Assembly is a standard
assembly, each seat elected by a quota of transferred or direct
votes. I expect that in mature Asset, almost all effective votes
will be indirect, transferred, from people the voters actually
know and can communicate with. This is a solution to the problem
of scale in democracy.)<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/15/2019 4:21 PM, Forest Simmons
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP29oncjepay2XYiLqetr2SvXSooseDYBXnWS8Z+efoBaEFS9w@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>This is a three slot method: voters can mark candidates
"preferred," "acceptable," or blank (no mark).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>There is a simple, low cost, (but not instant) runoff
between the the candidate with the greatest number of
preferred ratings and the candidate with the greatest approval
(preferred plus acceptable ratings).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The runoff is by candidate proxy, i.e. by asset voting. A
candidate's asset total is the number of ballots (or fractions
thereof) on which she is marked "preferred."</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So if you mark three candidates as preferred, each one of
them gets a third of an asset from your ballot.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In general three slot methods get off to a great start, but
get bogged down in deciding what to do when it is not clear
whether the approval winner or the plurality winner should be
the method winner.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>And every time we propose asset voting we get bogged down
in rules to constrain the candidates to some reasonable way of
using their assets to settle on a winner.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This hybrid method avoids both problems in one fell swoop!<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">----
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://electorama.com/em">https://electorama.com/em</a> for list info
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>