2011/6/8 robert bristow-johnson <r...@audioimagination.com> > > On Jun 8, 2011, at 9:51 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote: > > On Jun 8, 2011, at 1:32 PM, Juho Laatu wrote: >> >>> On 8.6.2011, at 16.15, Jameson Quinn wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> 1. Before the election, candidates (including declared write-ins) submit >>>> full rankings of other candidates. >>>> >>> ... > > i still think this Asset thingie is crappy. it is *immaterial* how > candidates rank or value the other candidates. the only thing that matters > is how the electorate values the candidates. > > Just curious: would you be happy if making your ballot delegable were opt-in, rather than opt-out?
You consider delegation to be a negative. But many people would like their vote to be delegable. For instance, as somebody whose views are out of the US mainstream, I do not expect my candidate to win. While of course I'd like to convince the majority to agree with my (impeccably correct) views, I do not even wish I could impose them undemocratically (except insofar as they accord with the constitution and/or inalienable rights). I would, however, like my views to have a spokesperson with a measure of democratic voice and power in accord with the size of my faction. If I truly liked a candidate, I would regard it as a positive benefit to give them my delegable vote, even if they ended up using it exactly as I would have. Furthermore, there are many voters for whom even an approval ballot is more work than they want to give. This is not necessarily a matter of laziness; perhaps the amount of work per candidate they consider appropriate for deciding is actually much higher than for most voters. Allowing a simple bullet vote to *optionally* implicitly vote on all candidates is a positive benefit to such voters. Finally, I have had serious conversations with people who seriously worry about making a poor strategic choice, to the point where they'll pick plurality over a better system, because at least the strongest strategy (in a two-party duopoly) is unambiguous. Such people would prefer their ballot strategy to be decided in the perfect-information environment that SODA gives to the candidates. And delegation is *100% optional*. If you don't want anyone delegating your vote, you don't have to let them. If I and other voters want to allow our votes to be delegated, for any of the perfectly good reasons above, why should you have a right to stop that? JQ
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info