[EM] Asset Voting vs. other methods

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[EM] Asset Voting vs. other methods

Forest Simmons
This message is a further comment on Lomax' recent post.

I agree that Asset voting is often the simplest entirely adequate solution.  But it depends on what kind of alternatives are under consideration; are they sentient beings or merely congress critters or inanimate objects, like competing locations for company headquarters.

Hence the need for other kinds of election methods that can deal with alternatives that cannot consciously participate in the deliberations of the voters.

That's my best answer to Lomax.  Thanks for the question!

----
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [EM] Asset Voting vs. other methods

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax

There is a very simple voting method that "voting systems" experts commonly neglect, because it is not a "voting system" as in Arrow's theorem, and neglecting this leads to no end of paradoxes and unresolvable difficulties.

It is called majority rule, and the practical application is that no decision is made democratically that has not been explicitly supported by a majority of those voting (and then there are various rules that deal with details.)

If one must determine a result from a single poll, a condition rejected by Robert's Rules of Order unless absolutely necessary, then score probably is best, but when we look at the real-world situations where that requirement is established, the necessity is only a matter of habit. Instead of submitting a complex question multiple-choice question for direct vote, one could create an Asset electoral college to make negotiation efficient by reducing the discussion group size. And the Asset college could then use ordinary deliberative process to review all possibities, and that college could use polling methods to speed up the process, requiring a majority vote to create a decision.

Decisions actually approved by only a plurality are not democratic decisions, not under Robert's Rules. They even consider a ballot with any mark on it as valid, even if the intent cannot be deciphered. And if a majoritiy of ballots don't approve a "winner," the election fails and the whole process must be repeated. Not this "top two" bullshit.

Ultimately, the attempt to make "democracy" more efficient by disregarding the requirement for a majority approval of a result sets up a kind of fascism and has historically enabled serious, deep, and highly destructive fascism. Yeah, but they made the trains run on time.

Until the full impact of disregarding basic democracy was felt, when almost the whole society was demolished.

I have used score to make personal decisions. Ask a series of questions about options, weight the questions according to importance, then sum the utilities.

And if I don't like the result, I throw it out and do what I choose. We do best with Yes/No decisions, because we can assess the relative merits by affinity and aversion. Score, a brilliant polling method, can advise us, but we are foolish if we let it deprive us of choice.

(I have seen approval used in an assembly with a very controversial proposal to change what had been practice for decades. The status quo probably had the firm support of two-thirds of those present. But when the assembly saw that there was another proposal with unanimous minus one support, only one disapproval, then the motion was made to change to that. And it was unanimously approved.

That is how real democracy works, in a functional organization. There was only one actual vote, on a single proposal, by an electorate informed though discussion and polling.

We are so accustomed to the nonsense that passes for democracy in common public elections, that we don't realize what is possible.

On 4/12/2019 8:45 PM, Forest Simmons wrote:
This message is a further comment on Lomax' recent post.

I agree that Asset voting is often the simplest entirely adequate solution.  But it depends on what kind of alternatives are under consideration; are they sentient beings or merely congress critters or inanimate objects, like competing locations for company headquarters.

Hence the need for other kinds of election methods that can deal with alternatives that cannot consciously participate in the deliberations of the voters.

That's my best answer to Lomax.  Thanks for the question!

----
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info

----
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info