At 10:10 AM 4/14/2006, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: >(If the candidates can provide the lists after the election, or if >such lists are used only in a first round, with failure to win a >majority approval -- approval cutoff could be included in the >candidate-provided lists -- then it really is Asset Voting of a kind.)
This should have read "used only in a first round, in the absence of a failure to win majority approval, in which case candidates could then change their votes in an additional round or rounds." This, by the way, points up a basic issue regarding ranked election methods. They can quite easily result in the election of a candidate who would not win a referendum on his election. This is what happens when elections are removed from deliberative process; this would not happen (or would not be sustained) under standard parliamentary procedure. Single-winner elections for representatives inherently remove the supporters of losing candidates from being represented by someone freely chosen. This is true even if election requires a majority vote. The situation can get much worse if plurality determines the winner. Ranked methods may appear to solve this problem, but only by deriving "support" from what can really be a declaration that "I prefer Ghenghis Khan to Adolf Hitler." It is my view that no crucial position in an organization should be filled without *at least* the consent of a majority of members, and it is far better for organizational unity if supermajority approval can be obtained. (If a majority of members specifically approve that the winner should be the plurality winner, that is tantamount to approving the plurality winner. But I don't recall *ever* being asked that question.... plurality was built into the system without any clear sign that the implications were known and considered. I think that the founders assumed a level of collegiality that has been disappearing. Of course, we also had the Civil War.) ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
