> That isn't how asset voting works. You assign your vote to the elector > that you most trust. The elector can then assign the vote to any candidate > after negotitation. > > There is a fractional version, but if you trust someone with 4/5 of your > vote, why don't you trust them with 100% of your vote ?
er...following that logic. If I trust all 4/5 of my money in the resource sector, why not trust 100% or it. There is no need to invest in High tech, or real estate, or manufacturing, or banking..etc... In personal economics a diversified portfolio helps reduce risk, I see no reason why in fractional asset should not follow the same logic. by diversifying the people or groups you give your votes to you reduce risk of your vote being corrupted. ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
