robert bristow-johnson wrote:
On May 31, 2011, at 10:46 PM, [email protected] wrote:
It has been averred many times on this list that in Australia, where
partial rankings are considered
spoiled ballots,
that sure makes little sense. is this related to the mandatory voting
laws for Aussies i hear about?
AFAIK, it's related to that you can't claim the IRV winner is a majority
winner if some people decline to vote for every candidate. Similarly, in
STV, quotas have to be readjusted if some voters truncate their ballots.
the vast majority of voters fill out their ballots by copying
"candidate cards" which are
published sample ballots recommended by the various candidates.
Asset voting makes this automatic for 100% of the voters. That's
probably going too far, so how do we
get a compromise between Asset voting and Condorcet?
i forget what Asset voting is. is it Approval or Score voting? (if so,
why a different name?)
Asset is basically this:
1. You vote for a candidate.
2. Each candidate gets points proportional to the number of votes he got.
3. All the candidates meet somewhere and negotiate, transferring points.
4. At the end of negotiation, the k winners with the most points win.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
