On Jun 2, 2008, at 2:05 , Fred Gohlke wrote:
I am concerned about the handling of divergent opinions, but will
cross that bridge when I come to it.
I have seen plenty of different opinions on various matters on this
mailing list, so better to just try to propose methods that would
appeal at least to some subgroup of the opinions here. Presenting a
well justified proposal that need not be agreed by all is maybe a
good approach.
I suspect our best course would be to select one race (you've
already mentioned 'governor') and build up a method around that.
I don't believe there would be a method that would be a good proposal
for all needs in all environments at all times. It is therefore
important to identify the environment and the target. One could e.g.
try to propose a realistic reform to the governor elections of the
USA. The current methods in use and the traditions (e.g. use of
write-ins in the USA) and the current opinions (is there an interest
to make a reform, and how much or how little can be changed) are
essential when trying to generate a proposal for such practical
situation (defining theoretical ideal models would be another approach).
It would also make sense to clearly lay out the basic requirements.
In this case I expect that the method should be such that it would
not be fully controlled by the current powerful parties but would
allow also third parties and/or individuals to be active and
influence the outcome.
Further more it would help to set some technical targets on what one
wants to achieve. Does one want to find a method that is based on
small hierarchical groups or maybe a more flat structure method.
Maybe one wants to base it on some well known existing methods like
Condorcet or some style of ballots (rankings, ratings, bullet
voting). The range of election methods is so wide that this kind of
limitations are typically needed (to define the intended scope of
search and expected range of comments and alternative proposals).
- - -
Maybe the scope is governor elections in the USA and the idea is to
make a proposal that might have chances of success in a few years
perspective.
I note that e.g. write-ins could be included in the proposal due to
the US traditions in this sector. Most other countries might not be
interested.
One could try to propose a method that is not bound to the current
set-up of two leading parties competing about the seat. => This
alone could mean that there is no easy to adopt proposals since the
incumbents are likely to oppose. But one can try.
If seeking for a good basic single-winner method (with no
hierarchical groups) then one could consider e.g. the Condorcet methods.
If one wants a method that is based on smallish hierarchical groups
and discussions within them then we can not get that good help from
the long tradition of election method studies but must improvise
more. There are many alternatives. (Of course the degree of change
when compared to the current system gets bigger and getting the
reform accepted becomes trickier.)
The nomination process could be an changed if one wants to open new
possibilities there. (I don't know much about the current nomination
practices so I don't propose anything here.)
Some more observations:
- requiring some level of education or other properties may not be
appropriate in a governor race (I guess the trust of people is more
important)
- there may be a need to limit the number of candidates somehow =>
some limitations in the nomination process
- - -
I'm just trying to point out that if the target and requirements are
clear enough then it is much easier to make and discuss concrete
proposals and how they would meet the given requirements. (Otherwise
the scope of alternative methods and opinions may be too wide to get
any good grip of the topic.)
Juho
___________________________________________________________
Inbox full of spam? Get leading spam protection and 1GB storage with All New Yahoo! Mail. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
