¡Hello!
¿How fare you?
I do not believe in attacking the ideas of others, so I refrained from
making this post from the remainder of July and all of August. I gave others
months to develop SODA without criticism:
The problem with most traditional voting systems is that one must
choose between jacks-of-all-trades-but-master-of-none and idiot-savants:
Let us suppose that the greatest living Agronomist who studied under
Professor Norman Ernest Borlaug (if you do not know who Professor Norman Ernest
Borlaug was, please kill yourself immediately), and a Renaissance-Politician
who served in the military, thus got to see the world, on the GI-Bill, got a
score of degrees, but the most advanced of which are A.Scs and A.As, who went
on to a score of careers before becoming a politician.
One can vote for depth or breadth.
With Asset-voting, one can have both:
Let us suppose that we have an Asset-Election where each voter gets 9
votes. I chose 9 votes because it gives voters choice, but is easy for the
voters to error-check:
In Base-10, make certain that the number of Asset-votes is a
single-digit-number. Make certain that the number in Base-10 is 9.
I could vote for 9 different Nobel-Lauriets who promise to transfer
their votes to Renaissance-Politicians who promise to call on their expertise
when needed. In other words, with Asset-Voting, one can have one’s cake and
eat it too.
SODA-Voting is a version of Asset-Voting. SODA is based on the fear of
being screwed by those who receive the Asset. It is impossible eliminate the
possibility of getting screwed. This holds for politicians in nontransferable
elections too. The logical thing to do is not vote for backstabbing
politicians again.
The paranoia of SODA is that it allows voters to make votes
nontransferable so that the politicians cannot screw the voter during transfer
negotiations. This means 2 things:
* One risks loss of voting power due to ballot-exhaustion (I
suspect that SODA is susceptible to voting-splitting and Duverger’s Law).
* Politicians can still screw over voters in the legislature.
SODA is a solution that does not work and it lets paranoid voters
disenfranchise themselves. I do not mind paranoid voters disenfranchising
themselves because that means more voting power for me, but soda hobbles
everyone to prevent that:
If one votes for more than 1 person in SODA makes the votes
nontransferable. That means that nonparanoid voters cannot vote for exports
who then transfer their votes to jacks-of-all-trades under the condition that
the Renaissance-Politicians call upon the experts when appropriate. One must
choose between the 2.
I do not like being hobbled because other voters are paranoid. If
other voters want to make their votes nontransferable, that is fine by me, but
they should have to live with reduced voting power due to exhaustion rather
than hobbling everyone else. This is how I would do it:
* Paranoid voters can indicate that their ballots are
nontransferable by marking on the ballots that the ballots are nontransferable
by marking them nontranferable, but must live with loss of voting power due to
ballot-exhaustion.
* Nonparanoid voters can choose 9 Nobel-Lauriets who then
transfer the votes to Renaissance-Politicians who promise to call upon the
expertise of the Nobel-Lauriets when appropriate.
Paranoid voters who are so afraid of being screwed that they make their
ballots nontransferable just screw themselves.
¡Peace!
--
“⸘Ŭalabio‽” <wala...@macosx.com>
Skype:
Walabio
An IntactWiki:
http://intactipedia.org/
“You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your
own facts.”
——
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
