Please explain, step by step, how it’s different. If votes can be traded freely between candidates, and candidates with high numbers of votes would give them to candidate with low numbers of votes, then why would one scenario lead to a moderate winning and the other lead to a liberal winning?
I’m assuming we have two scenarios: voters giving votes, and candidates having equal votes. Also, I think you want me to run my earlier example with 5 liberal candidates, 1 moderate, and 1 conservative. I’ll assume 30% of the electorate is liberal, 10% moderate, and 60% conservative, as above.
Scenario 1: Voters give votes
The 5 liberals split 30% of the votes, the moderate has 10%, and the conservative 60%. The conservative wins outright, lol. But what’s important to keep in mind is just how unitedly conservative the majority is, and whether there’s a conservative-moderate candidate in the race. If there had been a conservative-moderate with 20% of the vote, with the conservative having 40%, then the liberals and moderate could get behind the conservative-moderate and elect them to prevent a conservative victory.
Scenario 2: Candidates have equal votes
This means the 5 liberals divided by 7 total candidates have 5/7th of the vote. Any of them will obviously win.
This is why voters count under Asset; the amount of votes a candidate has influences the “frontrunners”. The negotiation phase in Asset is like a campaign followed by a strategic Plurality election where the two frontrunners are determined by candidate utility times number of votes they have. Does this make sense?
If that wall of text is not clear
L = 30, M = 10, C = 60
(conservative wins outright: L and M cannot exceed 60 no matter what they do.)
L = 30, M = 30, C = 40
(L+M exceeds C, so here the liberal and moderate can prevent the conservative from winning if the lib gives votes to the mod, so the lib will do so to prevent from the worst case)
And in a 5-district (total vote share is 500) the situation may be this:
L party = 135, M party = 120, C party = 245
Four seats immediately go to one lib, one mod, and two cons before the classic “prevent worst case by electing moderate” even comes in to play.
Do you think voters would be in support of Asset on the ballot?
Marketing. Marketing. Marketing.
Without specifying that: “Reply Hazy, Try Again Later”
Here’s an idea for marketing:
To the majority, tell them that Asset eliminates vote splitting, especially from 3rd parties.
To moderates, tell them that Asset will help moderate candidates.
For extremists, say that a moderate all of the time is better than the other side winning half the time, and undoing your side’s work.
Expanding on your point, I wrote on Facebook:
“Equal Vote” (almost for sure Mark Frohnmayer) responded: