Single-winner Asset (Election Theory)


So you specify a proxy and a list of approved candidates that your vote may go to support?
But then he says that the number of approvals is used to pick the winner from the final two. Then what are the proxy vote totals used for?


If I understand him right, he means that you approve any candidates you like, and for each of your approved that loses, they may approve candidates you didn’t. This means every voter is limited to one approval per candidate, preventing “asset buildup”.


I had a better idea for a compromise: let the candidates use Approval/Score/STAR/anything ballots on each other, with their ballots weighted by their percentage of votes received in the election. Much more likely to finish with a majority or consensus supported candidate winning the negotiations, since you’re concerned about the candidates being unwilling to negotiate.


I would go with repeated balloting (with votes weighted by vote total) until one person receives a majority, similar to how offices are filled in Robert’s Rules. Negotiations could take place in between ballots.

That said, I’m still not sold that this is a better method to promote than Approval. Approval has been successfully enacted via referendum before, in Fargo last November, showing that it can successfully be promoted to the general public. The unfamiliar process of resolving Asset elections would be a massive liability for efforts to enact it. That said, if you can demonstrate that Asset elects better quality winners than Approval, it could be worth the trade- there’s reasons that IRV is unpopular here, even though it has been enacted in many places. But the main advantage over Approval that you have cited- that voters don’t have to pick the compromise candidates themselves- is primarily cosmetic, since ultimately someone will decide which compromise candidate gets their vote.


I think some benefits are that the candidates are discussing how to get the voters’ desires enacted, and are more knowledgeable and caring than most voters. A lot of the time, one candidate trying to talk to every voter is going to miss certain conversations or needs that need to be addressed. Further, I think it shouldn’t be the public responsibility to have to evaluate every candidate, or the candidate with the best chance of winning; you should be able to express yourself to the extent that you know you can, and walk away happy, knowing that your vote actually did something. I’m not convinced that Approval does these things very well. It seems that a group of candidates who all know their voters really well can go further than all the voters together; that’s the idea of representative government in the first place. So if going for Approval fixes our democracy, great. I’ll hop on that train. My desire for Asset is purely focused on finding the best qualities in a voting system, while ensuring simplicity, and Asset does this to a great degree. Total voter honesty, no change to the ballot, and no need to change anything with vote tallying or elections administration. If you had to lobby for Asset or Approval, my argument would be that Asset is actually simpler for all these reasons. As a bonus, I think Asset is so much harder to repeal, since the candidates, interest groups, and parties that so often drive repeals are themselves benefitted by the increased and instant representation of trading votes. Will Asset elect better quality winners than Approval, or be tougher to administrate? I have a lot of thoughts on that, but ultimately, it comes down to whether fellow voting reformers are willing to push for Asset or not. Maybe someday, but probably not now.


The thing is, I consider Asset to be ONLY good for multi winner elections. For president, senate, and governor I would prefer Score Voting (not Approval). Score voting does not appear to be biased towards centrists, quartilists, or extremists. Asset may turn out to be biased in one direction, and electing your ENTIRE gov with one system seems risky and prone to the same problems compounding.


Neither Score nor Asset has ever been used for government elections, though we know from corporate usage of Proxy Voting that the fundamental idea is tenable. Why do you suspect one-sidedness with Asset? And, what is there to compound? One level of government selecting the nominees for the next, like the Senate and the Supreme Court?


I suspect that Asset may have some kind of bias, but I do not know what the bias will be. Therefore, having two different systems for the branches of government will help add more balance to the government.


Why would it have a bias? What part of the system gives you that feeling? And, supposing there is a bias, would it last for a long time, or swing/fade over time?
Do you think advocating for Asset PR is viable in the short term? I’m guessing you would want Score single winner, and then later Asset or anything PR. Not a bad way to go actually.


Yes, I think you have found an important problem with my proposal.


No, I think I didn’t think it through that carefully.


That’s alright :slight_smile: Your proposal should still technically work, I think.