http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/SODA
SODA is slightly more complicated for the voter since voter needs to check box saying she delegates her vote, or not. Also more complicated in the sense that there is more information shoved in the voter's face. But those deficits are probably amply compensated for... I think this is a very nice voting method. It also can be used both as a single-winner method, and as a PR multiwinner method (in the sense it acts like "asset voting"), right? Another very elegant point. It also has ideas in common with "DYN" http://www.rangevoting.org/DynDefn.html It is not entirely clear to me some other mental hybrid of asset and dyn ideas, might not be superior to SODA. Specifically, SODA only delegates if you vote plurality style. But you could also have a ballot like this: YES.....NO.....Candidate ___ .....___....A who prefers B>C>D ___ .....___....B who prefers A>C>D ___ .....___....C who prefers B>A>D ___ .....___....D who prefers B>C>A and if you put down exactly one "yes" and an arbitrary number of "no"s, then your blank entries get delegated to the candidate you voted yes on. Is that an improvement or a worsening versus the SODA rules? I definitely think SODA is a good idea, and I'd like to add a SODA page or two to the CRV website. On the "sample ballot" on the SODA web page, I do not like the use of the word "share." I think that word is not the right word. But I admit I'm unsure how best to re-word it. "Delegate your remaining approvals" is not the same as "share," is my linguistic point. -- Warren D. Smith http://RangeVoting.org <-- add your endorsement (by clicking "endorse" as 1st step) and math.temple.edu/~wds/homepage/works.html ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info