Single-winner Asset


Let me know what else you need convincing on. If you’re worried about corruption, I believe Asset does better than other voting systems, because the vote trading gives you a tangible way to see if candidates are betraying their voters for some potential gains. Here’s a short video I made on this topic:


I wonder if we an come up with some kind of combination that would have some of the benefits of both. We cast Approval ballots. The tally proceeds in rounds. It eliminates whoever has the fewest approvals, then invites that person to distribute their approvals to the candidates still in the running. This is repeated until only one candidate remains, who is then declared the winner.


This is SODA (Simple Optionally Delegated Approval) and DYN (Delegable Yes/No) to some extent. I can’t say I’m in favor, since there is still added complexity and I fear candidates would feel somewhat useless, but if you can get it on the ballot I’m voting yes on it!


Better yet (for my combination), make the candidates declare in advance some bits that by some rule (established before the election) determines how that candidate’s assets are distributed in case that candidate loses.


That could be a good backup. A concern I have with the elimination rounds part is that it may or may not eliminate moderates before they can get elected. This is why I prefer simple deadlines and one time transfers.


Since this thread seems like a better place for this post than where I originally posted it, I’m going to bring it up here:

Same for @AssetVotingAdvocacy’s reply:

Here is what I have to say about that reply:
There’s still the problem that advocating against separation of powers in the US gets you branded as a heretic.


It doesn’t necessarily hurt separation of powers, though. The legislature will actually be majority extremist, while the executive is a centrist. If the legislature was given proxy or score voting, then the legislature too becomes centrist, but that’s probably a bridge too far for current voting reform efforts.


The thing I find most compelling about Asset Voting is the introduction of a ‘ground-up’ approach to securing power. But I feel like this is most useful for electing multiple seats, because it means a much larger proportion of the assets will actually go towards giving someone power. Filling a 100 seat legislature using Hare quotas and requiring a half-quota for the last seat uses 99.5% of the assets. Filling a single seat takes 50% of the assets. If you volunteer to be an elector for a multi-winner election, the assets you win will probably be used to seat somebody, so you will have some sort of impact. In a single winner election, if you are a political minority in your area, then your assets probably won’t be necessary, and the winner will be someone you don’t like. You are showing up to endure certain defeat, and there isn’t much you can do to stop it. Asset electors are volunteers taking time out of their lives to serve the community, but it’s tougher to justify doing that when you’re just going to spend a week to a month on a lost cause. There will be fewer people willing to sign up to be Asset electors for single-winner than multi-winner elections, which diminishes the freedom of choice Asset offers to voters, which is one of its strongest selling points. If you hold them concurrently, this might not happen, but then you might as well dispense with the separate executive and just have a parliamentary system. (I know you argued otherwise, I’m just not convinced that the executive and legislative majority would differ with any greater frequency than, say, the legislative majority and its elected speaker.)

I just think that making Asset single-winner diminishes its positives, which is the opposite what the methods that CES generally promotes do.


Why would you mix the branches? Have one election for executive, and another for legislative.


I’m not sure that a political minority wouldn’t matter under Asset single winner. Couldn’t they get one of their less popular ideas passed by negotiating with the frontrunner?


If you hold legislative and executive asset elections simultaneously, a lot of people will probably give their legislative and executive assets to the same person, so the body choosing the executive and legislature will be very similar.


How did the idea even come up that one losing candidate could give assets in both an executive and a legislative election?

Maybe I don’t understand how Asset Voting works for a single-winner office. Is it this? Each voter chooses one candidate (scary). Whoever gets the fewest votes is the first loser. She transfers her votes to whichever other candidate she prefers. Repeat until only two candidates remain, then elect the one having more votes (including transferred votes in addition to original votes).


I think the best version of Asset single winner is vote for one candidate, then the candidates trade votes as they like until a deadline, say, a week. The reasoning for this is that if you’re a moderate, similar to IRV, you’ll be eliminated immediately, leading to extremism. If you can trade freely, that lets moderates force extremists to vote for them to avoid the other extremist winning.


After the week, if no one trades any votes voluntarily, it’s plurality for the winner?


Yup! This is good for putting pressure on those who are about to lose to trade their votes. I personally think there should be a stipulation that candidates holding a majority of the votes can “lock in” or “unlock” trading, to make sure nothing unfair happens, but Asset works very well without this too.


No way; it just degenerated into FPtP. Give me back my Approval Voting!


Here you go! “hands over Approval Voting”


@Abd had a somewhat different take on Asset in the CIFeR thread, which I think works better.


“I’m not suggesting Asset for single-winner elections, …”, says Abd in that thread.


Perhaps his version of Asset doesn’t work well there compared to mine?