Good Morning, Dave
Thank you for your comments on the outline I started for Juho. I will
include it in this message, modified by adding the points you mentioned,
striking some material (which can be reinstated, if appropriate), adding
comments, and making a change suggested by one of Juho's comments.
Perhaps we can flesh the material out. If so, I will maintain the list
as well as time permits. Right now, the outline does not reflect my
idea of a sound electoral method but many of the ideas are sketchy and
vague. I would like to help hone them into robust form while gaining
fresh insight into a complex problem. I hope, before we are done, we
have an outline we can all be comfortable with. If you feel my efforts
are intrusive or unwelcome, I shall, of course, desist.
It is likely there will be alternate views on some items. I will show
both sides of the issue until one or the other predominates. Some of
the points may be divisive. If so, those who dissent may build a
separate outline or maintain a separate branch of the discussion.
Obviously, given the difficulty of communicating with clarity, there is
a hazard in maintaining such an outline. If anyone notices an error,
they should call it to my attention, preferably without rancor, so it
can be corrected.
At the moment, the outline is a bit of a jumble but it should improve in
readability and understandability as we work on it.
--- ... --- ... --- ... --- ... --- ... --- ... --- ... --- ...
* NOMINATIONS, NOMINATORS and NOMINEES
- nominations are open to the entire electorate.
- nominators may nominate anyone, including themselves.
- nominations are incomplete until accepted by the nominee.
- nominators may not nominate more than one nominee.
- nominator and nominee must be part of the electorate.
- nominees may provide a resume, not larger than the equivalent of [30??
flg] typewritten 8.5 x 11 pages. The resume may include references to
additional source material describing the nominee's knowledge,
experience and aspirations.
* RESTRICTIONS
- an educational minimum [define the minimum. flg]
- if expertise is required in the area for which the person is
nominated, a degree symbolizing competence in that area. [this item
needs expansion. It should list the offices that require a degree and
the degree required. flg]
* ELECTION COORDINATOR
- lists of nominators and nominees are maintained by an election
coordinator and may be accessed by any member of the electorate. [should
the election coordinator publish the list? Where? flg]
- publishes the candidates' resumes and makes them available to the
electorate. [how or where should the resumes be published flg]
* BALLOT
- we will describe a paper ballot for ease of visualization. If the
ballot is implemented electronically the system must provide verifiable
results that are consistent with the provisions of the paper ballot we
describe.
- the ballot shall be a single piece of paper with the date and place of
the election, the name of the jurisdiction, the office to be filled, and
each candidate's name arranged in alphabetical order, a place for the
voter to mark the ballot, and no other information.
* VOTING
- each member of the electorate may cast a single ballot.
- each voter may mark the ballot to select a single candidate, or
- each voter may mark as many candidates as desired with a weighting
value between zero (0) and nine (9), where the higher the weighting
value assigned to a candidate, the stronger the voter's support for that
candidate. If a voter gives two candidates the same weighting value,
the weighting values cancel each other and both candidates are assigned
a weighting value of zero.
- by making a list of the candidates the voter approves, in which case
the candidates are listed in order of preference. If the first
candidate on the list does not get sufficient first place votes for
election, that candidate is dropped from the list and the second
candidate moves into the first position on that ballot. In this case,
since anyone may nominate anyone else, voters may write the name of
their candidate on the ballot.
[This item was challenged, with the following statement:
"REJECT - this has at least the smell of IRV. Condorcet uses the same
ballot but shows more interest in honoring voter desires."
The challenge provides no grounds, except for a purported odor, nor does
it specify how the item should be restated.]
VOTE COUNTING
- where a voter may only vote for a single candidate, the candidate
receiving the greatest number of votes wins.
- where voters assign their personal weighting value to each candidate,
the candidate that received the greatest cumulative total of weighted
votes wins.
--- ... --- ... --- ... --- ... --- ... --- ... --- ... --- ...
The foregoing assertions are intended as a start. They are all open to
challenge, improvement and restatement. As the auctioneer says, "It
doesn't matter where we start. It's where we end up that counts."
The following are questions and comments raised by reading your post and
some of Juho's material:
1) Since the nominator and nominee must be in the electorate, should
there be a (length of) residency requirement?
2) What does "accessible to all, but not especially publishable." mean?
Is there a reason to obstruct publication? If so, it should be
described in the list.
re: "A goal here is to, usually, get a reasonable quantity of candidates:
* Perhaps aiming for at least five whenever at least that many wish to
be candidates - anything working to limit to two major backers (parties)
is unacceptable. Twenty should be acceptable, but too many to have as a
goal.
* Number of nominators required to nominate a candidate seems like
primary control toward this goal"
Should the number of nominators be related to the population? In the U.
S., the number of nominators adequate for Wyoming, with a population of
a little over 500,000, would probably produce an excess in California,
with a population of over 36 million.
re: "Write-ins belong. Think on a simplification for counting: Treat
write-ins as if a candidate:
* Usually this will verify that there are not enough to affect results.
* When there are too many write-ins, redo the count with each such name
treated as a separate candidate."
In an environment where anyone may nominate anyone, is there an
advantage in having write-in votes? Those who wish to submit a write-in
vote are not inhibited from nominating their preferred candidate. If
they do so, they enhance the opportunity for their preference to achieve
election because others can consider their preference BEFORE the election.
"- if trust is required in the area for which the person is nominated,
support of at least 100 persons in addition to the nominator, expressed
by email or in some other form."
How does the support of 100 persons establish trustworthiness from the
people's point of view? Any Mafia Don can get 100 persons to support
him, and, from the perspective of Mafia members, the Don may be
trustworthy, but the public probably would not find him so. The same is
true of union members, Baptists and partisans of all stripes.
"* Alternately, the preceding process is used to select those who will
be candidates for election. Then, after these candidates are presented
to the voters, an election determines the winner."
Does this not open the door to unnecessary confusion? We should decide
whether we are considering a nominating mechanism or an election
mechanism. For my part, I'd prefer that we concentrate our efforts on
the nominating process. When that takes shape, we can discuss the
electoral process.
Fred
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
