Is asset voting a good thing? Let's review. The CRV supports it on the basis of obeying all sorts of wonderful properties.
http://math.temple.edu/~wds/homepage/multisurv.pdf My intitial response to this is that Asset Voting is only able to achieve such compliance through poverty of expression. Asset Voting is no more expressive than SNTV. Iterative systems are based on "conditional" votes, meaning their relative values change with regard to what has "happened". For example, your vote shifting to a less preferred candidate in IRV is a result of a more preferred candidate being permanently excluded from victory. The consequences of this are dire. Let's put this in perspective. Asset Voting is equivalent to STV with one large difference: only O(candidates) ballots are possible as opposed to O(candidates!) with STV. Even worse, these are not even revealed on the ballot. The voter gets no control over reallocation, the candidates are not bound to anything. I argue that restricting the domain of expression is not the best way to go about representing the will of the voters. Voters should be allowed to pick and choose among the candidates at will. I looked through the arguments made in favor of asset voting and their does not appear to be one concerning this point. ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
