2011/8/3 Peter Zbornik <pzbor...@gmail.com> > Hi Jameson, > > I like the slate-nominating feature it requires the nominators of the > slates to think about the "best" composition of the council and not about > "their" candidates. > This encourages deliberation and discussion across partisan "borders", I > imagine, in order to find the perfect mix. > > Slate nomination is used in Sweden a lot, where a nomination committee gets > the assignment to find "the ideal" slate. > By allowing everyone to nominate slates, this nomination committee might > not be needed, or would get some competition, I imagine. > > I like letting the voters do some deliberation and cross-partisan > communication in order to ease the pain of the computer in evaluating > zillions of slates. > > Peter > > Thanks for your positive comments. However, I have to admit that I anticipate that in most cases, the supposedly NP-complete problem would be an "easy case" which is resolvable using modern computation. So the winning slate would be often be proposed not by cross-partisan deliberation, but by someone who had a computer to evaluate zillions of slates.
Note that another practical problem with this method is that it requires publishing full ballot data. With even a fair number of candidates and rating levels, that would be enough to make many individual ballots, opening up the possibility of vote-buying and such. So while I think this method is quite beautiful in theory, I don't propose it for real-world use. JQ
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info