Warning, this post is long -- big surprise! :-) -- but it does actually
stay on the topic of election methods, how to implement election methods,
how to get from here to there, and evidence regarding these ideas.
At 03:51 PM 7/28/2005, Simmons, Forest wrote:
From his remarks below I think that Lomax would agree with me that
candidate A in the following example would likely be better for the
electorate than candidate M:
Sincere
55 M>A>>B
45 B>A>>M
Yes, if those were sincere votes. However, note that vote counts like this
represent a very highly polarized electorate. It is quite possible that the
best outcome for this election would be "None of The Above." Theoretically
Asset Voting could result in such an election -- NTA --, if the candidates
are allowed to give their votes to someone not on the ballot (as voters
normally can with write-in votes.)
On the other hand, M would be more likely to win the approval election,
unless a significant percentage of the M supporters were to vote
altruistically like Lomax, for A.
Yes. I'd quibble with the description of my voting behavior as
"altruistic," though. I'd hope that it would be, instead, "enlightened
self-interest." I think I and my family will be safer in a society which
operates with a higher level of consensus. Think of Ruanda and the election
of the Hutu government. The first choice of a majority of the people can be
disastrous.
I don't think mass genocide is at all likely in the United States; Ruanda
is raised simply to bring into relief the fact that a candidate acceptable
to all major factions in a society may be a much better winner, for the
society, than the first choice of a mere majority. This gets even more
clear in an election environment where voter turnout is poor, and the
winner is chosen by plurality, but there would still be an issue in
environments that require a majority to win.
In either case, we get a good winner.
By the low standard of plurality elections, yes. Note that in this case the
result is probably the same as in a plurality election. Approval Voting is,
quite certainly, not guaranteed to improve results. It merely allows for
that possibility, at low cost in ballot complexity, in conversion costs,
and, indeed, in the transitional political costs which may otherwise
prevent significant reform.
I think that once Approval Voting is in place, people would then recognize
that Approval Voting does not allow ranking. I think that Fractional
Approval Asset Voting (my variation on Mr. Smith's proposal), which also
does not allow ranking, nevertheless would be quite sufficient. Once you
have the idea of proxy voting in the system, choosing one proxy, or
dividing one's vote equally among proxies, is close enough to pure Asset
Voting (which, as proposed, would be much more complex to use and to count)
that the difference is moot. FAAV, though it would work just fine for
single-winner elections, and as with Asset Voting, is designed for
multi-winner PR elections. Fractional Approval as distinct from regular,
full-vote Approval, is necessary in the proxy environment, else those who
approve more than one candidate actually would gain voting power.
In FAAV, it is Asset Voting, but the only choice of the voters is yes/no on
all candidates (just as in standard plurality elections, with overvoting
allowed). If the voter casts n votes, each one of them counts for 1/n vote
in the totals of those chosen.
So FAAV essentially gives the right to choose winners to an individual (one
vote) or to a committee (more than one vote cast). It's been pointed out
that voters could decide to trust an individual (and if a quota of them do
this, then that individual is elected) or, for example, a *party* (perhaps
the voter votes for all candidates from a party), or, for a caucus within a
party (the voter votes for all candidates who belong to that caucus.) And
in no case is the voter's vote wasted. In PR-FAAV, as in regular Asset
Voting, almost every vote is eventually devoted to a candidate and brings
that candidate to the quota. *Everyone* would be able to claim "my vote
elected a candidate," though in some cases, they would not know exactly
which candidate. (If they voted for A, who received more than the quota,
then they would not know which votes, individually, were transferred to
another winner.)
So FAAV ballots would look exactly like present plurality ballots, except
that they might be longer, with more candidates. Possibly *many* more. I'd
assume that rules might determine how candidates would get on the ballot,
but presumably others could be written-in. And write-in votes, once again,
would not be wasted, except in the case of intransigence of a candidate
holding votes. "If I can't win that last seat, nobody can." Fine. The
assembly would be a member short. Happens all the time, for other reasons.
If you choose to vote for an intransigent candidate, you got what you
chose. Intransigency is not a desirable trait in a democratic society, I'd
suggest.
I do suggest DP for the resulting electoral college, as have others. That
allows minor "winners" to choose to pass their votes on and not participate
further, unless they want to. (You are a "winner" in this sense if you get
even one vote. Which might be your own. In what is on the wiki, however,
you must be registered as a proxy to participate further, and you exercise
your own vote in that way, in the post-election process, which is why
registered proxies would not vote in the general election by secret ballot.
The secret ballot layer is necessary for conditions where coercion or
extortion are reasonable possibilities.) Whether or not proxy *voting*
would be allowed in the preliminary votes of the electoral college, I'd
suggest that it might be advantageous under dangerous conditions to require
that all votes be cast directly by the "electors," secretly. This would
deal with coercion directed against low-level "winners." There are also
technical possibilities that I won't go into; generally, my preference is
to avoid trying to define in detail what final operational structures would
look like, but only to sometimes suggest possibilities simply to allow the
impression to form that this might actually work, that this might actually
be practical and realizable.
The case I worry about is
sincere
60 A>>B>C
20 B>C>>A
20 C>B>>A
where the corporate polls are reporting:
disinformation
40 A>B>C
30 B>C>A
30 C>B>A
Disinformation is, of course, a crucial issue. I have my own solution for
it, which is, naturally, part of the FA/DP concept. If enough of the public
self-organize using the FA/DP principles, they can easily afford their own
media and their own surveys. *They already spend, directly or indirectly,
quite a bit of money on media.* Directing some of that money into stock in
media corporations, and assigning corporate proxies in concert through an
FA/DP structure, could result in media where honest and depth coincide with
profit motive.
Disinformation, if not countered by reliable and not only trustworthy but
trusted information, can distort any election in much more profound ways
than by causing incorrect strategic voting.
Note that the disinformation posited here was vastly different from the
truth, and even a fairly primitive survey that was not distorted would
uncover that. In any case, it is crucial that we begin to have reliable
media. I say that the best way to do that is to either buy existing media
or create new media.
*How* such media would be controlled is crucial. If all we do is to set up
yet another non-profit corporation, which will inevitably develop its own
self-interest, and which will act on that self-interest unless there is a
restraining force, we will merely be going down the same old road again. I
think NPR is great, I listen to it every day, but neutral and fully
reliable, it is not.
-- Though it may be *more* neutral than other alternatives out there.
Neither is Radio Free America reliable, it is a progressive-side reflection
of the trash on the other side. In other words, at least some of it is
trash. Believe it or not, this is not a criticism! (or, perhaps more
accurately, it is certainly not a condemnation.) It is merely a reflection
of the shortcomings inherent in creating polarized media.
In this case all of the pundits are going to encourage A supporters to
approve B as well. I'm afraid that most of the A supporters would fall for it.
B is not a bad choice, though, in that election. B is the first or second
choice of *all* the voters. Whether or not B is a better choice, I'd say,
depends on the depth behind the ranking of A over B. To know that, we'd
need something like range voting, assuming that voters vote sincerely and
do not merely give all their vote to their favorite. But Smith's Asset
Voting is much better.
That's why I think that there should be some standard or target that comes
out of the primary or preliminary vote that sets the stage for
Approval. "Approve or Dare" or "Lottery Informed Approval" or some other
source of binding (hence reliable) information.
Small groups could use repeated approval balloting where the scores
accumulate so that manipulation is counter-productive.
I agree that there are means to make Approval more reliable. I also point
out that such means potentially exist outside of the election system, that
could function without changes in election law. Plurality works fine if the
effective field has been winnowed by pre-election negotiation among the
parties. And the voters.
*Within* what would be election law changes is Mr. Smith's Asset Voting,
which essentially solves certain election problems by including a
deliberative phase in which every vote has power.
Large groups could form a small subset of voters by random sample to
choose a "target candidate."
It's called "delegable proxy," only instead of random sample (imagine the
trust issues!), there is a *choice* process. A small subset of voters end
up negotiating the election results (in political DP) or what the
recommendation to members (in FA DP) will be. (For the most part, in pure
delegable proxy, any voter may still participate, but few will actually do
so, and those few will not gum up the works, because of how the rules, I
expect, will develop.)
Then this target candidate is the winner unless some other candidate
gets more than fifty percent approval in the general approval election,
in which case the candidate with the most approval wins. Since the
proceedings of the small group are public, the general voters get an idea
of the relative strengths of the candidates, etc. before they vote.
Basically, this is my idea. I've just detailed the mechanism by which such
a group could be created, without having elections and thus without
excluding *anyone* from the process. Because the group size would become
large, there would need to be certain restrictions on how individuals
participate at a high level; my suggestion is that large "meetings" (real
or virtual) define a subset of members, based on level of proxy assignment,
who may directly speak (or post); others would have to convince a member of
this subset to present their ideas or to enter their motions. Any qualified
member. Including, most specially, those whom they chose, directly or
indirectly, and who presumably have given them permission to communicate
personally with them. (Would you choose someone who did not give you that
permission, or who did not demonstrate, whenever you tried, that the person
actually read and considered what you wrote?)
Sometimes the word Free Association conjures up an image of a free-for-all.
But anyone who has actually participated in the close analogies to Free
Associations that already exist would know that this is not the case.
People, even quite damaged people, are much better behaved than that. And
the Free in Free Association also implies the freedom *not* to associate.
In Free Associations, decision-making is doubly isolated from dominance by
a clique or by the equivalent, a set of members who habitually take the
time of everyone with long speeches; as in the words of a local preacher in
our Town Meeting town, people who have nothing to say and who are willing
to take a long time to say it. The fact is, though, that I haven't seen
this actually happen at Town Meeting. People have been brief and to the
point. But this is a small town. What could be called the "crank effect"
becomes more and more of a problem as the population sample becomes larger,
and this is one of the two reasons why Town Meeting has always been
abandoned as towns grow. A local town, Amherst, still calls itself a Town
Meeting town, but their "Town Meeting" is actually a representative
assembly -- though a really large one. You have to be elected to speak.
Indeed, the Amherst Town Meeting is a step toward delegable proxy, but has
its problems because the proxy concept was missing and instead there is a
large elected body, I think it is elected by neighborhood. There have been
two attempts to discard the Town Meeting in Amherst and both failed by only
a very few votes.
I do wander. Were this a face-to-face meeting, I'd think this quite
offensive. I argue that in written material, it may be less than fully
effective, but it is not offensive, because anyone can simply skip it. It
would be quite different at a Town Meeting which is already running late
into the night.... (And, by the way, I've received multiple congratulations
for my actual participation in Town Meeting, where I was often able to
state the consensus, leading to immediate vote and decision, almost always
unanimous. I don't like long speeches by others and I don't want to inflict
them on anyone.)
With Delegable Proxy, if there is a meeting where a bore has the right to
speak, the other participants can indeed simply go home, or reconvene as a
caucus. If for some reason the meeting running long is actually important,
it is not merely a hearing, but a vote is going to be taken, the
participants who leave can leave behind a proxy or a few, to ensure that
nothing untoward happens from what would otherwise leave the cranks in
charge (or a radical clique, as in alleged previous Communist union
take-over techniques).
So that's one protection. The other protection is that in a Free
Association, the Association itself does not take a position on any issue
of controversy. It exists solely to facilitate communication, and one
aspect of that is the measurement of consensus. A vote in an FA never
*decides* anything, unless it is a purely internal matter, what in Robert's
Rules is called a Question of Privilege (i.e., should we turn down the
thermostat or open the window?). Rather, the Association reports the
results of polls.
Only if a poll reveals unanimous consent to a position (voting directly or
by proxy, and I'd include procedures for a member who is offended by their
proxy's vote, and who remains unconvinced by the proxy to change their
vote) would the Association announce the result as the position of the
organization. In a large political FA, I'd think this would almost never
happen. Indeed, I'd advise against the organization taking a position if
that position might inhibit others, as yet unconvinced, from joining. But
it could be reported that the poll was unanimous. Anyone outside who
doesn't like the prospect of that could simply join and vote in the poll!
But consider the power of an open FA, one with no particular bias in
membership (other than a willingness to join an organization specifically
designed to make joining and participating as easy as possible). Pick *any*
other member and name that person as your proxy. If the proxy refuses to
accept, most proxies would, I think, suggest a replacement. And you can
name your husband or wife, mother, partner, father, sister, brother,
neighbor or any other member. Perhaps a movie star.
(About that, my views are quite different from what is often said. For me,
it is only important that the proxies, on average, be smarter, more
reliable, of higher character, or whatever characteristic that would make
the proxy a better participant at a higher level, than those who choose
them. If people are so careless as to choose a media figure whom they do
not personally know, or at least know well enough to warrant the choice,
then I'd suggest that they would not be good proxies themselves, and they
probably have raised the level of the average proxy by choosing that movie
star rather than one of their peers. But I also think that most movie stars
would refuse to accept many proxies, because of the way that proxies would
work in a Free Association)
You would *not* be forced to choose *any* proxy, and you could still
participate. In a DP organization, your vote is never wasted, it is present
and active at the highest levels, because any "meeting" of the whole
organization would provide means for people to vote absentee. In
governmental DP, this would be a bad idea -- under anything resembling
present conditions -- but in an FA, the purpose of a poll is to measure the
level of consensus among the members. *All* the members. And if a member
does not feel represented by his or her proxy on an issue, the member is
free to directly vote.
Such an organization would advise its members in two ways: directly from
the top, by publishing the results of polls on recommendations, and, in
addition, down through the proxy network, where a trusted person is
advising the one who trusted. FA-DP networks are networks of trust, and
this is why I expect that FA-DP recommendations would carry real weight.
Ideally, each proxy only accepts
Alternatively, the small group could designate candidates or other proxies
to pick the candidate to be "targeted" in the general approval election.
Once again, I'm glad to see the proxy concept being mentioned. Mr. Smith's
Asset Voting, once I realized what it was, I recognized as being a form of
delegable proxy, and specifically governmental DP. See
http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/Delegable_Proxy_Election
Substitute "Candidate" for "Registered Proxy", and perhaps twiddle a few
rules, and Asset Voting is DPE.
It's too bad that Mr. Smith does not recognize that we don't have to wait
for Godot to come in order to begin building organizations that will
effectively *implement* Asset Voting, not merely advocate it or another
method. (If you can control the nomination process, that is, the process of
naming candidates to be on the ballot as representing large groups, then
you can control the outcome of elections, and plurality works just fine as
a ratification method. Essentially, the final vote would be an independent,
secret-ballot confirmation of the decisions made openly in a large FA.)
Mr. Smith, in a post to the ApprovalVoting list, wrote:
If you cannot even get the 3rd parties to support this, who the hell
are you going to get? (And frankly, I tire of this hogwash about
somehow
ignoring all parties and the government and just organically creating
magic FAs
everywhere that come from the spontaneous joy of free love that
conventional
thinkers like me are too closebrained to see.
Go back to the Land of Oz as rapidly as possible please.)
I responded to this on the Approval Voting list, and it appears that I was
put on moderation without notice, prior to the post; my response was
deleted without notice. This inspired me to create an alternative list, for
posts rejected or disappeared by the moderator of the ApprovalVoting list.
This is an FA-like response. It does not attempt to take over existing
organizations, just to create alternatives. If nobody wants an alternative,
fine. If nobody wants to read my posts, I can't say that I like that, but
it is absolutely the right of individuals. As I said, in FAs -- and society
as a whole is an unconscious FA with various caucuses which sometimes
pretend to speak for the whole -- the freedom includes the freedom to *not*
associate. If the moderator of the Approval Voting does not want my posts
to appear, it's his privilege to reject them. But in a Free Association,
such an action by a person with a position of control will *typically*
inspire the formation of an independent group. This is actually one of the
ways that Alcoholics Anonymous grew so rapidly. Part of the genius of the
founders of AA was to institutionalize this freedom. If a group of people
say that they are an AA group, they can and will be listed in the meeting
lists. And members can and will check them out. It doesn't matter if those
people, for example, believe that controlled drinking is just fine. The AA
position would be that any member is free to advocate that position, and if
the member manages to stay sober, they won't be offended! But those who
tried it and ended up in the gutter once again will drag themselves back to
meetings and report their experience. This is why the "controlled-drinking"
position is hardly ever heard in AA. Too many have tried it already.
So a defacto organizational position appears without any need to repress
minority views. In AA, the position that controlled drinking is impossible
for a true alcoholic is so much a matter of consensus that it is expressed
in organizational publications, but organizational publications in AA,
quite clearly, only express the views of the writers. AA itself "takes no
position on issues of controversy." So when you see newspaper articles
excoriating AA for being fascist or dictatorial or a bunch of religious
fanatics (I've seen all these), the organization itself remains silent.
As to my response to Mr. Smith, such as it is, it can be found at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AVFA/message/3
And another rejected post, which was clearly relevant to Approval Voting
(as the moderator admitted), but which allegedly included irrelevant
material, can be found at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AVFA/message/4
And I just discovered that, apparently, a whole series of messages were
deleted without notice or comment. That's not necessarily relevant here,
though if relevance appears to me, I might mention it again.
----
Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
