I came across this: http://lists.electorama.com/htdig.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com/2002-December/008919.html
>Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 14:28:47 -0800 (PST) >From: Forest Simmons <<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: Candidate Proxy Methods > >Dear [his correspondent, and he forwarded the mail to the EM list], > >I would like your feedback on the following minimal voting method reform >proposal: > >The method is an example of a "Candidate Proxy" method. If no candidate >gets a full majority of the votes, then each candidate represents his/her >supporters in an "Election Completion Convention" in which an "Election >Completion Procedure" is carried out by the candidates. Follows is a description of what is essentially single-winner Asset Voting, with only one vote allowed. Of course, it's a small step beyond that to interpret overvotes as assigning fractional votes to multiple candidates, though this complicates the counting (a little, not a lot) and is not essential in my view. And it is likewise a relatively small step to use Asset for multiwinner elections to form a fully proportional assembly that could self-assemble with floating, overlapping "districts." (Why would there be districts at all? Well, precinct vote counts are available, and candidates could reassign votes in precinct blocks to create seats grouping proximate precincts, where there are enough votes. Yet there may also be some seats which would be state-wide.) I also find much earlier in the EM archive, back in 1997, discussion of what was called Proxy STV. This was a form of delegable proxy, because the assembly members elected have variable voting power. I'm not sure -- I find it difficult to search that archive -- but it does not seem to have been realized that with a proxy assembly, it's possible to bypass most of the election method and proceed straight to voluntary assembly of votes, thus avoiding some of the hazards that caused much concern back in this days, the bete noir of some individual ending up with a majority of votes. It is highly unlikely that an electorate would assign a majority of votes to an individual; but it would be easy to set a cap well below the hazard level, and my guess is that a significant cap would never be approached in practice. Once people can freely choose representatives, they are hardly likely to all fall upon the same person as ideal! (Indeed, that would, in a sense, represent the election of a king, not of a representative, because a representative is a communications link, not an officer, as such. The *duty* of the representative is to represent, which requires continuous communication, which requires that it take place at some level well below that of the entirety.) ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info