At 09:48 AM 8/30/2007, Howard Swerdfeger wrote: >In personal economics a diversified portfolio helps reduce risk, I see >no reason why in fractional asset should not follow the same logic. by >diversifying the people or groups you give your votes to you reduce risk >of your vote being corrupted.
Well, whether or not it reduces risk depends on the effort you can put into watching how your vote works. There are two versions of the adage: "Don't put all your eggs in one basket," and "Put all your eggs in one basket and watch that basket like a hawk!" If you have eggs in many baskets, you may not be able to watch them. FAAV allows you to make the choice, while the ballot remains very simple. I'd probably vote for one, though, because I think know who, quite precisely, represents me, and I can talk to this person. Now, with secret ballot, I could vote for five and then talk to one, it still works. But then I really only know how one fraction of my vote is working.... Someone who is relatively uninformed about all the possible candidates -- which is pretty braod in Asset, we assume that something very similar to write-in is allowed -- might indeed decide to spread the vote out among a number of candidates, not being sure about whom to trust. But, generally, in my view, the best strategy in asset is to pick the single candidate you most trust. If this is based on knowledge, it's safer than spreading it around. That a candidate is getting a *lot* of votes, though, is a mark against him in Asset! It does make him a target for possible corruption. So that, too, is a factor. Asset turns traditional politics on its head. Voting for one person is quite practical in Asset, you can even simply vote for yourself, in which case you become a public elector and can participate in the direct democracy of electors..... ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info