Good Afternoon, Dave
I did a very poor job of describing my intentions when I started the
outline based on Juho's comments. It struck me it would be a good idea
to encourage a joint effort to create a sound electoral method. Several
ideas are regularly discussed on [Election-Methods] and, although I'm
not intimately familiar with most of them, they seem to favor fixed
approaches. Since I don't think any have gained general approval, I
thought it might be worthwhile to seek a more flexible approach in the
hope of combining the best elements of all of them.
The statements in the outline are not intended (or expected) to remain.
They should be replaced by more definitive statements as various
people challenge this or that assertion and help mold a clear, sound
method of electing our public officials. My role in the process is that
of a clerk. I fully intend to voice my opinion, but the outline must be
what others want it to be, not my impression of what they want it to be.
There is the obvious difficulty of properly expressing the views of
others, so, my preference is that contributions be written to replace
statements in the outline. I am concerned about the handling of
divergent opinions, but will cross that bridge when I come to it.
Ideally, the outline would be in a fixed location where it could be
maintained, but I've no idea of the practicality of that notion. Unless
and until we can made such an arrangement, I will append the outline, in
it's then-current form, to some of my posts. I'm not certain I'll be
available to continue the process, but feel confident that, if the idea
has merit, someone will find a way to make it work.
I'm writing all this explanation to you because I'm hoping you will
restate some of your observations in a way I can copy into the outline.
I'd much rather not try to restate your intent. Here are a couple of
the comments you've made that I don't know how to handle in their
current form:
re: "Depends on race - even one such page would be overkill for some
local races."
I suspect our best course would be to select one race (you've already
mentioned 'governor') and build up a method around that. Once the
method for one race is clearly defined, it should be straightforward to
modify it for other races.
re: "Degrees are not always the best evidence of ability."
How should the requirement be stated?
re: "Internet web pages are, more and more, the best choice."
Can you make this an assertion I can include?
re: "There are STRONG arguments against alphabetical order - particular
list positions attract voters."
The arguments should be presented in a way they can be examined.
re: "Equal approval rating should be permitted (IRV chokes on such, but
IRV should be rejected for other reasons)."
This needs exposition, examination and, perhaps, challenge.
re: "Ranking is appropriate, but do it more like the weighting described
above." ... and ... "Anyway, while bullet voting should be permitted,
there should not be more than one other method, such as ranking or
weighting."
These need itemization and exposition so they can be enhanced.
re: "If IRV tempts, join me on Condorcet, which uses the same ballot but
does not have the same failure. As an example A is popular below (and
Condorcet would see A's popularity), but IRV would not elect A without
more first-place votes:
28 B>A>C
25 D>A>E
24 F>A>G
23 A>B>C
This may be profound but it can not stand without information to support
the assertion. I lack the knowledge to flesh it out.
re: "You describe Range rating here. Ranking is a method worth mentioning."
At the risk of showing my ignorance, I wasn't aware there is a
difference ... or why it might be important.
re: "... should there be a (length of) residency requirement?
Sure."
What should it be?
re: "Yes, population counts. Experience also counts - if unreasonably
few or many candidates happen often, adjust."
How can this be presented so those reading the outline can agree or
provide additional insights?
re: "Candidate lists NEED establishment X days before election to allow
planning and thinking."
We need to say how many days so others can provide reasons why the
number should be changed.
re: "Then unplanned events can create need for changes (e.g., candidate
dies)."
To the maximum practical extent, we should identify the possible
unplanned events and a manner of dealing with each.
re: "My words about a write-in method were perhaps too detailed to
bother with here."
It is more likely the details need to be listed so they can be examined
and challenged (if appropriate)
re: "I want a set of nominators, which really attends to this problem,
though whether the count should be over or under 100 is controlled by
other needs."
How would we create a set of nominators (for governor?)?
re: "(a nominating mechanism or an election mechanism) Actually they can
get mixed."
Perhaps, but our outline must have clarity.
I hope you don't consider it an imposition for me to ask you to revisit
this matter. Indeed, if you think the whole idea silly or a waste of
time, I'll drop it.
Fred
(Method)
* 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.
- lists of nominators and nominees may be accessed by any member of the
electorate.
- nominees must provide a resume, not larger than the equivalent of
(30??) 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
- if expertise is required in the area for which the person is
nominated, a degree symbolizing competence in that area.
- 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.
* Nominations (the name of the nominator and nominated) are recorded by
an election coordinator.
* ELECTION COORDINATOR
- publicizes and makes the list of candidates available to the electorate.
- publishes the candidates' resumes and makes them available to the
electorate.
(add) publishes a leaflet that has same space reserved for all
candidates to tell who they are and what they represent. The leaflet is
mailed to all members of the electorate. Copies are available for
pickup at the election coordinator's office.
* 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 specifically state how the item should be restated.]
- the candidate receiving the greatest number of votes wins.
* 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.
(End Method)
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
