At 03:13 PM 8/16/2005, Simmons, Forest wrote:
Asset voting (in its lone mark version) is one of the few methods simple enough to have a decent chance among lazy U.S. voters, and it would be the greatest possible improvement consistent with the simple lone mark ballot.
Absolutely, and it is gratifying to see Mr. Simmons say this. I've been arguing for some time now to the same effect (by the way, I would not agree with "lazy." People do make rational choices about where to put their efforts, and in a sane society, not everyone would be seriously involved with what might be called global issues. Rather, the job of most people is to deal with what is in front of their faces. But people should be able to make *one* clear choice: who represents me. And this should be a voluntary and uncoerced choice.)
Asset voting gets us almost all the way there. Allow write-in votes and we *are* there.
At the beginning a "convention" would not be necessary. Rather Asset Voting would start out just like present "Plurality." (Though I would make it Approval, which I then call Fractional Approval Asset Voting, because of the technical details of how votes would be counted, I'll give a proposal below.)
The proposal is that the ballots might be counted first as ordinary approval. If a majority appears from this process for a given candidate in a single-winner election, the candidate would be elected. If not, then the ballots would be retabulated as fractional approval, i.e., if you voted for N candidates, your vote would be assigned as 1/N for each of them, and then it is ordinary Asset voting from that point.
Or, alternatively, I'm not really sure which is best, the ballots are counted fractionally from the start.
In ordinary Approval, fractional votes weaken the voter's vote. But in Asset Voting, none of the votes are lost; it is merely the voter's choice whether or not to give the vote to one person or to distribute it among a virtual committee.
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
