ran_in_93's blog

Practical decomracy for candidate selection (a universal primary?)

Practical democracy is a reasonable way to find candidates. Involving everyone at the first level is good. Keep the family rule and the five meeting rule, for all the right reasons. Then make triads totally random within a cost effective geographic area. Small enough, not too big. Forget about joining factions, because we are all in this together. If there will be only one eventual winner, each triad IS inclined to put forward their most qualified alternative. I would like to see the levels end at a point like in the example of 25000.

In an Emocracy,"I don't know" should count as zero

With multiple options, and a range of positive to negative, saying "I don't know" about one or more of them should count as zero. If the voter wants to approve or disapprove, let them do it. But it is unfair to allow the easy out of "I don't know" to count the same as "I really don't like". If "I don't know" means "I'll let the rest of you decide" then it should have no effect on the outcome. It should count as zero. By any interpretation, "I don't know" should result in no benefit and no harm. As an example, look at the emocracy poll. Emocracy scores 9 for, 5 against and 4 "I don't know".

Taking Party off the ballot for representation in a district.

Taking party off the ballot in a vote for representation. Do that and the tables turn. The only thing a party wins is the agenda in Canada (if only they could vote on that), or the Presidency and his/her mandate in the USA. Representatives, preferably each elected by a majority in their district, will likely be supportive of an agenda elected by a majority in a nation wide vote. Every national party could publicly identify whichever and however many of the candidates are acceptable to their supporters.

Which of these six?

For public elections, the vote needs to be simple. IRV can be overdone and underdone. The Australians require a full ranking of candidates. With four or more good candidates, it's a long hard count. Voters for the Mayor of London are limited to 2 picks. Very countable. But in their most recent election more than 10% of the voters didn't pick the top two. They didn't count.

Condorcet and equal approval

The Condorcet system I am familiar with allow for ties between choices of preference.

For example, three choices A, B and C.

a valid ballot can be cast for A = B, which puts both of them 1 vote ahead of C.

that's the opposite of a single preference showing a vote for C, which puts C 1 vote ahead of both A and B.

These are both valid opinions and both should be permitted.

Here's a very old web page that allows Condorcet voting using ties:

Syndicate content