On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 7:22 AM, Greg Nisbet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
No candidate is permanently excluded in standard Asset. However, some variants (the more transparent ones) do emulate a PR-STV like elimination scheme. > 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. The trick with Asset is that there should be more candidates. The idea is to find a candidate who has the same viewpoint as you. The lack of expressiveness is offset by a greater number of candidate choices. Under asset, there are 2 types of candidates, the only who want to be elected, and the ones who only intend to be electors. In fact, you could have a situation where people who stand in the election are prohibited to be nominated. > 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 think a hybrid PR-STV/Asset system would be superior to pure Asset. In this the voters can rank their choices, but also name a candidate who will handle their exhausted ballots. ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
