Yes, that's about it. But of course the situation is still somewhat uncomfortable to regular voters that are not interested and active enough to register themselves or that are unwilling to reveal their preferences to all (i.e. no secret vote allowed), but that would like to participate also in the second round.
Juho On 9.6.2011, at 12.49, Jameson Quinn wrote: > > > 2011/6/9 Juho Laatu <juho4...@yahoo.co.uk> > On 9.6.2011, at 11.23, Jameson Quinn wrote: > >> 2011/6/8 robert bristow-johnson <r...@audioimagination.com> > >> (this is worse than IRV.) i (and i would hope that most intelligent >> voters) do *not* want someone else voting for me in elections. >> >> And in SODA, you and anyone else who feels that way can easily make sure it >> doesn't happen. Why do you want to deny me and the people who feel like me >> the right to > > If we assume that it is ok to allow each voter to decide if he/she will > delegate or not, there is still one smaller problem left. If the ballot would > contain also option "I will delegate my vote to myself" then both paths would > be in a rather similar position. Now those voters that do not want to > delegate their vote (to others for further decisions on how the vote will > influence the outcome of the election) have more limited choices (only fixed > approvals) than those that delegate. Only the delegated votes may make > further decisions based on the outcome of the first round and negotiations > between the rounds. A voter that does not want to delegate may be interested > in active participation in the second round too. > > Technically speaking, SODA as defined allows this. Register as a write-in, > declare your preferences (thus voluntarily ceding your right to a secret > ballot), bullet-vote for yourself, and you are free to participate in the > second round. The system is still satisfied, because second-round voters > still have perfect information on the declared preference order of all other > second-round voters. > > However, this would create logistical problems if it were too common an > option. Simply publishing thousands of declared preference orders (desirable > in the first round and mandatory in the second) would be difficult. And by > increasing the number of second-round voters, the advantage that it's easier > to ensure cooperation in a smaller group (to resolve the "near-clone > chicken") would be lost. > > Ideally, then, the rules for declaring yourself as a write-in and > pre-announcing your preferences would contain some hurdle(s) just high enough > to keep people from doing it frivolously. Something like a minimum-length > candidate statement and a $25 dollar filing fee would be plenty; heavy enough > to keep thousands of people from doing it, but light enough to be an > insignificant burden to anyone who's remotely serious about it. > > Jameson > ---- > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
