On 9.6.2011, at 5.04, robert bristow-johnson wrote: > i still think this Asset thingie is crappy. it is *immaterial* how > candidates rank or value the other candidates. the only thing that matters > is how the electorate values the candidates. > > No Smoke-Filled Rooms!!!
Yes, there are risks. If one wants the electorate to make the decision, then delegation may be problematic. My default example that tries to point out the line between direct and delegated elections is this one: Millions of voters vote on who will be the president; voting power is delegated to candidates; one of the candidates will get the power to decide; that candidate (= one of the voters) then can and will decide if the next president is A or B. One problem is that millions of voters may feel disappointed since this one person made the final decision instead of them. One problem is that people may fear that this person traded his vote for money or political position or something else. One problem is that some of the supporters of this deciding candidate chose A instead of their favourite B. In SODA this last problem is reduced because of the pre-declared preferences, but still a voter with preference order C>X>Y>B>A could have bullet voted for candidate C with declared preference order C>X>Y>A>B. So, at least the voters should be made well aware that in these elections there may be some trading before the final decision. Juho ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
