Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 12:48 PM 3/15/2007, Chris Benham wrote:
Asset Voting is not "merely proxy voting". The voters are compelled
to choose candidates as their
proxys, who then become privileged super-voters. And in any case I
don't support proxy voting
for public political elections.
Chris has made some assumptions about the identity of candidates. In
particular, I've assumed that write-in votes are allowed. So what is
to prevent a voter from voting for himself or herself?
As I understand the Asset Voting procedure, if a significant proportion
of voters did that the meeting
room where the final negotiating and voting takes place could become
over-crowded.
I'd be interested to know why Chris is opposed to "proxy voting for
public political elections." What is it about political elections
that is different from, say, corporate elections? Sure, there are
differences, but why do these differences imply that proxy voting is
to be rejected?
I don't see any need for it, and its obviously open to abuse. Plus it is
good for democracy if everyone
directly participates. I don't see that people who are too lazy or
incompetent to vote, or not allowed
out by their domineering associates should be allowed to sign over extra
voting power to Uncle Abd.
What would Chris think about Asset used for multiwinner elections?
Bad, but less so.
Again, why?
Less bad because (as with Party List PR) with a very simple ballot and
voting, some sort of proportionality
is achieved.
Note that Asset Voting can be, effectively, STV. Consider this: the
ballot could be an STV ranked ballot, which may be truncated. I would
assume, generally, that a voter would most trust their first choice,
so if a truncated ballot is exhausted, the vote would revert to the
control of the first-ranked candidate. It would be possible that the
voter could separately specify the proxy to control votes in the
event of ballot exhaustion, but I really don't see significant benefit in that.
With this procedure, if a voter votes for only one, it is, for that
voter, pure Asset Voting. If a voter ranks all candidates, it is STV,
effectively.
I get it and don't like it. It just gives parties and candidates extra
'sheep manipulating' power by making it easier
for the sheep to assign their lower preferences blindly.
Chris Benham
----
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
