Discussion:
[EM] IRV-recent discussions
(too old to reply)
steve bosworth
2018-07-19 21:18:55 UTC
Permalink
IRV-recent discussions



General Questions from Steve:

TO: All

I wish to thank all those contributing to the various discussions prompted by Sennet’s news about RCV (IRV). However, I would also very much appreciate it if each contributor would help me test my claim that only EPR wastes no votes in the sense defined as follows by the 2nd paragraph in my EPR article:

We see a citizen’s one vote as being wasted quantitatively to the degree that it fails proportionately to add to the voting power of the councilmember whom she has helped to elect. A citizen’s vote is wasted qualitatively when it fails to increase the voting power of the member she sees as most fit for the office, e.g. the one she trusts most to speak, work, and vote in the council as she would do herself if she had the time, energy, skills and opportunity to do so.8 Her vote is ‘partly wasted’ qualitatively when her vote is instead given to a member who is less valued by her.

1. Please explain how the voting method you currently most favor does or does not waste votes as defined above.

2. Also, do you agree with Balinski & and Laraki’s argument that grading candidates is more meaningful, informative, and discerning than ranking them (or by marking them in any other way)? Personally, I see this claim as valid given the observation that rankings can be deduced from evaluations (e.g. EXCELLENT, VERY GOOD, etc.) but evaluations (grades) cannot be deduced from rankings.



What do you think? I look forward to your feedback.

Steve
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
2018-07-20 14:46:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by steve bosworth
IRV-recent discussions
[...]I would also very much appreciate it if each contributor would
help me test my claim that only EPR wastes no votes in the sense
We see a citizen’s one vote as being /wasted/ quantitatively to the
degree that it fails proportionately to add to the voting power of the
councilmember whom she has helped to elect.A citizen’s vote is
/wasted/ qualitatively when it fails to increase the voting power of
the member she sees as most /fit/ for the office, e.g. the one she
trusts most to speak, work, and vote in the council as she would do
herself if she had the time, energy, skills and opportunity to do
so.^8 Her vote is ‘partly wasted’ qualitatively when her vote is
instead given to a member who is less valued by her.
1. Please explain how the voting method you currently most favor does
or does not waste votes as defined above.
The definition is narrow. Asset clearly, however, empowers the elector
the voter has chosen. If the system maintains the electoral college and
if electors can reassign their votes, the power would be continuous. If
there are excess votes given to the seat, the seat may either reassign
them, thus exercising power through another seat chosen by the seat, or,
if such delegation is not allowed, the seat may ask the elector to
reassign them. In every case, the one chosen by the voter has the power
to use the vote. No vote is wasted.

Asset is very unlike other voting system. It is collaborative, not
competitive.

(It is possible, by the way, that voters would be able to audit the
election, to personally verify that their vote actually went to the
elector they chose. Crypto. But this is a separate issue.)
Post by steve bosworth
1. Also, do you agree with Balinski & and Laraki’s argument that
grading candidates is more meaningful, informative, and discerning
than ranking them (or by marking them in any other
way)?Personally, I see this claim as valid given the observation
that rankings can be deduced from evaluations (e.g. EXCELLENT,
VERY GOOD, etc.) but evaluations (grades) cannot be deduced from
rankings.
Score ballots are always more informative. Scoring allows ranking but
ranking does not allow scoring, as stated. The number of possible scores
should either be high, or at least the equal to the number of candidates
on the ballot plus one. That is, the voter should be able to rank all
candidates plus at least one write-in.

That is not relevant to Asset, designed to allow the voter to designate
a single choice of best representative. Because the system does not
waste votes, it is not necessary to complicate the ballot and further
process and analysis by allowing alternate choices. (But a candidate
elector might have a publicly designated alternate, to whom their votes
go if they become disabled. So a voter can consider that in choosing
whom to vote for.

However, I am opposed, by comparison, to single-winner elections; for
choosing officers (executives), I would delegate that to the Assembly,
which represents all the voters and may make choices by simple majority.
It can also require supermajority, that's a rule choice, and Assemblies
make their own rules. Score ballots, however, are excellent for polling,
for quickly grabbing the sense of the electorate or Assembly. A final
decision, however, should always be ratified by the Assembly, majority
required or no decision is made. Standard democratic deliberative
process. And the Assembly can change it's mind at any time, kick the bum
out, hire someone else. (No finding of "bum" is needed, it's simply a no
confidence choice.)

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...