On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 19:05:14 -0400 Fred Gohlke wrote:
Good Afternoon, Dave
I did a very poor job of describing my intentions when I started the
outline based on Juho's comments. It struck me it would be a good idea
to encourage a joint effort to create a sound electoral method. Several
ideas are regularly discussed on [Election-Methods] and, although I'm
not intimately familiar with most of them, they seem to favor fixed
approaches. Since I don't think any have gained general approval, I
thought it might be worthwhile to seek a more flexible approach in the
hope of combining the best elements of all of them.
The statements in the outline are not intended (or expected) to remain.
They should be replaced by more definitive statements as various people
challenge this or that assertion and help mold a clear, sound method of
electing our public officials. My role in the process is that of a
clerk. I fully intend to voice my opinion, but the outline must be what
others want it to be, not my impression of what they want it to be.
There is the obvious difficulty of properly expressing the views of
others, so, my preference is that contributions be written to replace
statements in the outline. I am concerned about the handling of
divergent opinions, but will cross that bridge when I come to it.
Ideally, the outline would be in a fixed location where it could be
maintained, but I've no idea of the practicality of that notion. Unless
and until we can made such an arrangement, I will append the outline, in
it's then-current form, to some of my posts. I'm not certain I'll be
available to continue the process, but feel confident that, if the idea
has merit, someone will find a way to make it work.
I'm writing all this explanation to you because I'm hoping you will
restate some of your observations in a way I can copy into the outline.
I'd much rather not try to restate your intent. Here are a couple of
the comments you've made that I don't know how to handle in their
current form:
re: "Depends on race - even one such page would be overkill for some
local races."
I suspect our best course would be to select one race (you've already
mentioned 'governor') and build up a method around that. Once the
method for one race is clearly defined, it should be straightforward to
modify it for other races.
When I say "race" below it will be because requirements are stiffer for
governor than for village trustee - and even for governor of a large state
than for a small state. It varies based on importance of office, size of
electorate, and even on experience with the electorate.
Examples may be offered for starting thoughts such as for governor of a
medium state.
re: "Degrees are not always the best evidence of ability."
How should the requirement be stated?
race - degrees are sometimes important, but understanding of task is
sometimes more important.
re: "Internet web pages are, more and more, the best choice."
Can you make this an assertion I can include?
Idnhahr - I do not have a handy reference.
re: "There are STRONG arguments against alphabetical order - particular
list positions attract voters."
The arguments should be presented in a way they can be examined.
Idnhahr - but some claim different orders should be used on different
ballots to even out benefits of being first.
re: "Equal approval rating should be permitted (IRV chokes on such, but
IRV should be rejected for other reasons)."
This needs exposition, examination and, perhaps, challenge.
When ranking candidates, voters can desire to express equal liking for two
or more.
Condorcet has no problem with honoring such ranking.
If IRV is presented with equal rankings of which one is to be discarded as
least liked, fair treatment of remaining such candidates is a challenge.
re: "Ranking is appropriate, but do it more like the weighting described
above." ... and ... "Anyway, while bullet voting should be permitted,
there should not be more than one other method, such as ranking or
weighting."
These need itemization and exposition so they can be enhanced.
Context was permitting voters to expresses thoughts fitting incompatible
election methods.
While a new method might be devised using some combinations of such, just
letting voters express such without preparing for counting is destructive.
For example, ranking for IRV is incompatible with rating for Range.
I do believe bullet voting fits with most anything else - though some,
such as IRV, may not permit it.
re: "If IRV tempts, join me on Condorcet, which uses the same ballot but
does not have the same failure. As an example A is popular below (and
Condorcet would see A's popularity), but IRV would not elect A without
more first-place votes:
28 B>A>C
25 D>A>E
24 F>A>G
23 A>B>C
This may be profound but it can not stand without information to support
the assertion. I lack the knowledge to flesh it out.
IRV would discard least liked in order: A, FAG, DAE, and declare B winner.
Condorcet will discard in order: FGDE, and see A deserving.
Try, instead, 28 A>B>C and 23 B>A>C - could happen on a different day with
the same voters:
Condorcet will see no difference.
IRV will now see A as deserving.
re: "You describe Range rating here. Ranking is a method worth mentioning."
At the risk of showing my ignorance, I wasn't aware there is a
difference ... or why it might be important.
Ranking A>B>C in IRV or Condorcet calls A top, B middle, and C bottom, but
says nothing about how much this voter likes A better than C.
Rating A=9, B=2, and C=1 says this voter would agree as to ranking, but
likes A MUCH better than the disliked other two - and Range, based on
ratings, will count these numbers - would take 7 voters rating A=4 and B=5
to make B tie A after above single vote.
re: "... should there be a (length of) residency requirement?
Sure."
What should it be?
race.
re: "Yes, population counts. Experience also counts - if unreasonably
few or many candidates happen often, adjust."
How can this be presented so those reading the outline can agree or
provide additional insights?
race. History can also help:
If there are too many candidates, make it harder next year.
If too few, go for easier.
re: "Candidate lists NEED establishment X days before election to allow
planning and thinking."
We need to say how many days so others can provide reasons why the
number should be changed.
race. Tend to want more campaign time for governor.
re: "Then unplanned events can create need for changes (e.g., candidate
dies)."
To the maximum practical extent, we should identify the possible
unplanned events and a manner of dealing with each.
NOT LIKELY - context was write-ins, for which each voter decides need for
write-ins.
re: "My words about a write-in method were perhaps too detailed to
bother with here."
It is more likely the details need to be listed so they can be examined
and challenged (if appropriate)
Context was optimizing this part of counting - which we had best ignore here.
re: "I want a set of nominators, which really attends to this problem,
though whether the count should be over or under 100 is controlled by
other needs."
How would we create a set of nominators (for governor?)?
We do not - those wanting a particular individual as candidate see to that.
Concerned with quantity of candidates, we make the task easier or harder
to attend to that goal.
re: "(a nominating mechanism or an election mechanism) Actually they can
get mixed."
Perhaps, but our outline must have clarity.
I hope you don't consider it an imposition for me to ask you to revisit
this matter. Indeed, if you think the whole idea silly or a waste of
time, I'll drop it.
Fred
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
