Single-winner Asset


#21

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


#22

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.


#23

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


#24

Here you go! “hands over Approval Voting”


#25

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


#26

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


#27

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


#28

The deadline unnecessarily kills Asset’s “no wasted votes” potential. The U.S. electoral college, as originally designed, required a majority to elect the President and Vice-President. If that failed, the issue went to Congress, it being considered crucial to have a President. The negotiation process, which may involve actual meetings, travel, lots of conversations, could easily take more than a week without harm. Deadlock merely leaves some votes, probably not many, unrepresented, with it always being possible for the electors holding the votes to come to an agreement, better late than never. Closing the election closes that off, guaranteeing unrepresented votes. However, this topic is single-winner asset, where I prefer, strongly, Asset be used to select those who “hire” officers, at will. Direct election of officers is a very bad idea, creating massive hysteresis in the system. That has a value, but consider the extreme: a flaw in election methods gives an unrepresentative U.S. President major power for four years. Parliamentary systems avoid this, running far more like ordinary businesses. No corporate board would elect a CEO for a fixed term. Shareholders elect the board through cumulative voting, which can be like asset in some ways. The board “elects” officers to serve at-will, of the board majority.
But Asset could be used single-winner, and I would never allow election by a mere plurality. Rather, if there is a deadline without a majority, the election has failed and must be repeated. This is standard democratic process, which voting systems theorists often pay no attention to. Asset simply, in this context, would allow a time for a majority to be negotiated.
In Asset implementations I would support, actual votes by electors, the “Asset holders” would be public record. So if they electors fail to come to agreement, the public can look at its options and reconsider votes in the repeated election.
Asset works best, my opinion, with unrestricted voting, no printed ballot with names. This will practically guarantee majority failure before reassignments. Accepting plurality results was a decision that was made long ago, probably in the name of efficiency, and “efficiency” is also a standard excuse for fascism.
Better voting methods have been around for a long time, but are not used. Why? It is important for anyone who would reform the system to understand that question, and until what prevents reform is addressed, all the discussions about ideas for better systems will be like arguing over the design of a fish bicycle.


#29

I don’t own a method, though I created many method discussions. However, simple Asset was actually tested in an election, and this is the Center for Election Science, and the difference between pseudoscience and wishful thinking is experiment and neutral analysis, not logical arguments and subjective assessments of “better.”

Absent experiment, those will be building castles in the air, how big should the dining room be? And which way should the windows face?

But I have not looked at AssetVotingAdvocacy’s version, yet. I will, if I can find it.


#30

This judges an election method based on something that has nothing to do with the election method, and, indeed, that radically misunderstands how the existing systems works. Bernie did his best to avoid a repeat of the 2000 debacle, and he did better, my opinion, but the knee-jerk Anyone But Clinton faction still functioned to effectively elect Trump. Way to go, haters! You got what you hated for.

Consider Nader in 2000: “Make a statement! Anyone but Tweedledum and Tweedledee! Vote for me and the Green Party.” Far more realistic and effective would have been, “Vote for T or T, because you will otherwise be wasting a vote, and if you are progressive, vote for Gore, and send $5 in my name to the Green Party, and vote for Fusion Voting when it comes up, this will empower the Green Party to maintain ballot access.”

But, no, Nader did not do that and the result was massive damage to the Supreme Court, delay in dealing with global warning that could cost millions of lives, an invasion of Iraq based on intelligence error and ignoring the advice from generals, and more, much more.

My political views do not establish a standard for assessing election methods. Simple question:
Suppose we have an Asset election, and a voter votes for more than one. How should this be handled? Should the vote be tossed?

Two contexts: printed ballot with names. No, the vote should not be tossed, but the vote becomes what I used to call FAAV, Fractional Approval (Asset?) Voting. The vote is divided between the candidates selected by the voter, including write-ins, I would assume. One write-in allowed. (This is actually Warren’s system, with one vote instead of 100 per voter.")

No names on the ballot: Rules would limit how many votes would be counted, and the ballot would specifically provide this restriction. Otherwise someone will write a lot of names in fine print, causing major work for very little voting power being assigned.

In real life, system details will be developed, but my basic Approval slogan was “Count All the Votes.” Nice bumper sticker, eh?

And if we want to make it longer, we could add “and Make All Votes Count.”

Or just “Approval Voting.”

The forum software is borked badly. This was written as a specific reply but could not be accepted (because “too many responses”), but then in order to actually find and submit it I had to copy my response and abandon the edit, then find the original topic and edit my reply, hence this. I don’t know what forum software is being used, or I could advise specifically. I’m tempted to just withdraw from participation, which is more or less what happened when the googlegroups mailing list was borked. That was deliberate and unnecessary, just another example of what I’m talking about below, no matter how well-intentioned.

My attempted comment.

After approaching two decades of working with voting system reform, I’m no longer surprised to find that people think that voting systems are improved through coercion. Autocratic thinking remains very strong, even among people supposedly working for democracy. Those “extremists” represent real voters, who have, in a democratic system, a right to be heard, restricted only by natural law. A “moderate forcing extremists” is not a democratic process, it’s coercion and intolerance, not moderation at all, but faux.
Proportional Representation was killed in New York based on the election of “extremists” to the assembly. I.e, “socialists and blacks.” Can’t have that, can we?

The best method ever used in the U.S., Bucklin, was killed largely with an argument that it elected a socialist. Never mind that he was actually moderate in practice. When Bucklin worked in public elections, they were reversed by a court, in a famous case, based on completely specious arguments, the real problem probably being that Bucklin threatened the establishment, and this was in the Depression and the public bent over and took it. There was widespread outrage, in fact, but it went nowhere.

The court wrote something not functionally different from this, in the appeal:

“We are aware of widespread public and legal opinion that we were incorrect, but we are the Supremes, so Fuck Off!”

California’s rejection of Bucklin, for San Francisco, no less, was utterly appalling.

The last Bucklin usage, for certain primary elections, was killed because most people were not adding extra votes, and there was still majority failure, thus the argument was that this was useless. If I’m correct, it was replaced by runoff voting. Had they kept Bucklin and held a runoff if no majority were found, they would have had a greatly improved runoff voting system, with ballots being Bucklin.

But this would have allowed dark horses to win. Can’t have that! And that is the real obstacle to voting system reform: the existing political system, which will act to preserve whatever maintains its power, or whatever they think acts in that way.

So Fusion Voting was defeated in Massachusetts, supposedly a liberal state. No, the “Democratic Party” is democratic in name and in vague concepts, but not in reality. And I’m a Democrat. This is simply what can be seen, when events test the commitment to democracy.
And this happens in voting system organizations, it certainly happened with Fair Vote, nee the Center for Proportional Representation, which became the Center for Voting and Democracy, and then FairVote. When it comes to how we do things, the hell with democracy, we should do things the Correct Way ™.
After approaching two decades of working with voting system reform, I’m no longer surprised to find that people think that voting systems are improved through coercion. Autocratic thinking remains very strong, even among people supposedly working for democracy. Those “extremists” represent real voters, who have, in a democratic system, a right to be heard, restricted only by natural law. A “moderate forcing extremists” is not a democratic process, it’s coercion and intolerance, not moderation at all, but faux.
Proportional Representation was killed in New York based on the election of “extremists” to the assembly. I.e, “socialists and blacks.” Can’t have that, can we?
The best method ever used in the U.S., Bucklin, was killed largely with an argument that it elected a socialist. Never mind that he was actually moderate in practice. When Bucklin worked in public elections, they were reversed based on completely specious arguments, the real problem probably being that Bucklin threatened the establishment, and this was in the Depression and the public bent over and took it. There was widespread outrage, in fact, but it went nowhere.
The last Bucklin usage was killed because most people were not adding extra votes, and there was still majority failure, thus the argument was that this was useless. If I’m correct, it was replaced by runoff voting. Had they kept Bucklin and held a runoff if no majority were found, they would have had a greatly improved runoff voting system, with ballots being Bucklin. But this would have allowed dark horses to win. Can’t have that! And that is the real obstacle to voting system reform: the existing political system, which will act to preserve whatever maintains its power, or whatever they think acts in that way.
So Fusion Voting was defeated in Massachusetts, supposedly a liberal state. No, the “Democratic Party” is democratic in name and in vague concepts, but not in reality. And I’m a Democrat. This is simply what can be seen, when events test the commitment to democracy.
And this happens in voting system organizations, it certainly happened with Fair Vote, nee the Center for Proportional Representation, which became the Center for Voting and Democracy, and then FairVote. When it comes to how we do things, the hell with democracy, we should do things the Correct Way ™.


#31

My version would be better than simple Plurality, no doubt. Your version is even better, but it seems unviabls for the short term. My proposal could be a good stepping stone to yours, I think.