2012/1/22 MIKE OSSIPOFF <nkk...@hotmail.com> > Jameson: > > SODA can be described to someone in a brief way that people accept. In a > recent convefrsation, I described SODA, and the person considered it > acceptable. You're speciflying the rules in too much detail. The > street-description, and the petition-language, needn't be the legal > language (though that should be available upon request). Likewise, for > MTAOC or MCAOC, or AOC, people won't demand > to see the computer program, but it will be available to the person who > wants to look at it. The person who wouldn't accept a > computer program also wouldn't ask to read it. > > So here's how I described SODA to that person: > > It's like Approval, but, if you vote only for one person, you can > optionally check a box indicating that you want that person > to be able to add approval votes to your ballot, on your behalf, if s/he > doesn't win. S/he will have previously published a ranking > of candidates to show the order in which s/he would give such delegated > approvals. >
Good description. > > That's it. That brief descriptionl tells how the method works. > > As I said yesterday, it seems to me that it would be much more > publicly-accepable if the default assumption is non-delegation. > If someone wants to delegate, they can check the box to indicate that. > One main advantage of SODA is that the laziest possible voter, the one who just checks one candidate and goes home, has a vote which is essentially as strategically powerful as any. Thus, I prefer delegation by default. But I certainly wouldn't fight about it, and I'd happily embrace your version. > > I'd like SODA to be a bit fancier: Why should delegation only b e > available to the person who has only voted for one candidate? Say you vote > for several candidates. Each candidate has a delegation box by hir name. If > you want to, you can designate as delegate any > candidate for whom you've voted. (but you can only deleglate just one > candidate) > > As in your version, s/he can add to your ballot approvals for candidates > for whom you haven't voted, as long as your resulting approval set doesn't > skip any candidates in hir publicized ranking. > > Disadvantage: It loses some of SODA's simplicity. I understand that the > "S" in SODA is for "simple". > Exactly. In particular, it loses the ballot simplicity, and thus becomes arguably worse than plurality in that way (ie, more rather than less possible to unintentionally spoil a ballot in some way). Also, the summability, and the complexity of strategic possibilities in the delegation phase (although not, I think, the outcome; but I'm not sure) both suffer significantly. > > As you said, the optional-ness of the delegation should avoid any > complaint of undemocratic-ness. But of couise opponents > will still try to use that complaint. > > I'll mention SODA (simple or more elaborate) along with the other FBC/ABE > methods, any time I suggest new methods more complicated than Approval. Of > course sometimes you only have time to mention Approval. > Thank you. Jameson
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info