On Sun, 14 Sep 2003, Bart Ingles wrote: > > I think it would be hard to get the proxy concept into public elections, > but maybe for party primaries. As a sort of "approval purist", I would > lean toward making "No Proxy" the default, replacing the checkbox with > one labeled, "Allow Proxy".
I prefer this default, too. The only reason I suggested the other was that it would make it easier to tabulate the ballots using existing machinery: You would just pass the ballots through the precinct counting machines twice, once with the single winner FPTP setting, and once with the Multiple Winners at Large setting. In the first pass all of the ballots with more than one mark (i.e. the non proxy approval ballots) would be ignored, since they would be "scratch" ballots according to the rules of FPTP. In the second pass all of the ballots (including proxy) would be counted as approval ballots. To get the true approval ballot results, subtract the first pass results from the second pass results. > One way to judge the applicability of the proxy idea is to consider a > Proxy/FPTP hybrid. If proxy voting adds anything to an approval > election, then the benefit when added to a first-past-the-post election > should be even greater, shouldn't it? Definitely. Personally, I think that this hybrid, though not as good as the Proxy/Approval hybrid, would beat IRV in performance, as well as in public appeal. Furthermore, it would work well for Proportional Representation, either as is or as Proxy/Cumulative, since Cumulative and Plurality are strategically equivalent, and Cumulative doesn't do that bad for PR when the polls are good and the voters can coordinate, both conditions being satisfied in the Election Completion Convention under Candidate Proxy methods. Forest ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
