Talk:Asset voting: Difference between revisions
→Smith Set
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 59:
:::: So then it's just an oligarchy where the opinions of the negotiators are the only things that matter, and the votes given to them by the populace are irrelevant? — [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] ([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 16:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
::::: Probably, though this view must be balanced by the fact that if Asset is used as a PR method with a hundred or more seats with the entire country voting as one district, and the candidates are forced to be elected whenever they receive a Droop quota (and perhaps the voters have the option of going with a normal party list rather than picking an individual candidate, if they want to), then the voters will have much more of a say in who wins and who doesn't. Also, suppose that you did Asset but with ranked or rated ballots, and where the negotiators' only role is choosing who within the voter-preferred Smith Set (either for a single-winner method or multi-winner method) wins; that would be also be more democratic.
::::: Anyways, do you still find the claim that Asset elects from the negotiators' Smith Set dubious? The point of that claim is to demonstrate that Asset, as a concept, is really just a reframing of the Condorcet principle (which can also be applied to PR), and when applied appropriately (i.e. if a small group election is held where the voters themselves negotiate, so that they actually elect the voter-preferred Condorcet winner, or at least begin to figure out who that is, then they start to understand that the Condorcet winner is like an equilibrium outcome that's iteratively reached if everyone is maximally strategic) or used only as a concept (as an algorithm, or for demonstrating how Condorcet pairwise counting works, for example) can help explain that principle. In other words, the simplicity of Asset can be a segue to understanding voting theory. Consider that understanding Asset PR is a lot easier than understanding CPO-STV or Schulze STV, even though the concept (elect from the Smith Set of winner sets of some group of voters or negotiators) is almost the exact same; once someone understands those finer details of how Asset can get proportional results, they can then use that insight to understand Condorcet PR in general, and then perhaps use that to better understand cardinal PR as well. [[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy|BetterVotingAdvocacy]] ([[User talk:BetterVotingAdvocacy|talk]]) 17:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
== Content from deleted Wikipedia article ==
| |||