At 06:46 AM 4/7/2007, James Gilmour wrote: >Any form of "bullet vote" gives the parties de facto control. Elections >are for electors - or at least, they should be!
Well, if I understand Mr. Gilmour, in Asset, voters choose electors. Which may or may not represent parties, it's up to the voters. What Asset does is to make it possible for voters to move around the party system, but it does not require them to. However, they may certainly bullet-vote. This has nothing to do with parties, in Asset, unless the bullet-vote is for a candidate who will toe the party line. Asset allows candidates to run who might have little or no chance of winning office, and allows voters to vote for them without thereby wasting their vote. Allowing voters under Asset to vote for more than one, I consider desirable, but it will complicate the vote counting, though not greatly, particularly if the number you can vote for is limited. To count Asset ballots and divide the votes, distribute the ballots into piles according to the number of votes on them. Then count the single-vote pile and accumulate the candidate votes from it. Then count the two-vote pile and accumulate the votes from it and divide them by two, adding the total to the first set. Etc. Almost as fast as straight counting, but there is more work if many people vote for more than one, simply because more votes are cast that need to be counted. If it is considered impractical to allow multiple votes in Asset, it's not essential. It could be one vote, period. It's not harmful, in my opinion. Just not quite as flexible. ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
