Depends on the meaning. Assimetry would be the proper spelling, if you mean a technique for measuring asses. 
The only real way I now think it could work is if we agree beforehand how it can work.
Let’s say I am Town and think “pizza” is Town, but LH75 thinks pizza is Scum. If I agree to let LH75 vote through me, I am helping an agenda I think is wrong. As we are both Town there is no reason LH75 is more right than I am other than my thoughtful opinion, which I believe to be valid. Allowing the vote through me undermines my opinion.
If I am Town and think pizza is Scum, I am already voting for them.
If I am Town and have no opinion on pizza then I am probably OK with adding the vote, though I likely think someone else is a better choice.
If I am Scum and know pizza is Town, then heck yeah you can join my vote.
If I am Scum and know pizza is Scum then I can pretend to be hesitant Town for the above legitimate Town reasons.
Thing is, LH75 will always have a Town motive and thus in theory it ultimately helps Town for them to vote.
So if we can arrange, early on, a way that guarantees LH75 a vote despite real and phony misgivings, we should do it. I think it must be entirely random.
Thoughts?
No, it’s the other way around. If you say a Scum that you planned to vote for pizza yoursef LH75 will have to delegte that vote to someone else who did not plan to vote for pizza, so pizza will get your personal, particular vote and LH75’s vote executed by another town. That is two votes.
you will vote for pizza, but only once. You will not refuse so as not to reveal yourself, because claiming that you cannot vote for pizza in LH75’s name because you wanted to vote for pizza yourself (the only legitimate reason to refuse to execute LH75’s will) and then not voting for pizza is evidently scummy.
Scum vote get one vote more if it suited them. And if it suited them, they would know, as opposite to Townies.
NETA: If you say as Scum, sorry for the typos.
Say I am Scum and I am voting for Town “Joe”. LH75 comes along to vote for Town pizza. I am quite ok with that. I get an extra misvote and my hands are clean. If I am Scum busing my buddy pizza, then sorry LH75, gosh darn it you cannot unfortunately vote through me. That I may change my mind and vote later is just the breaks.
What if you are Town and you think LH75 is dead wrong about pizza? You think Joe is Scum but not pizza. While you know LH75 is an honest voter you believe them to be misguided and that convicting pizza will be very bad for Town, while letting Joe continue to live and reducing fragile Town numbers. What do you do?
The more I think about it the less certain I am that letting LH75 vote is a good idea. The execution of the vote tends to favour Scum.
Let him participate, let him argue his case if he wants to. He votes by convincing Townies, not by asking someone who could be Scum or Town to vote for him.
It seemed like such a good idea the other night.
I did not know I had the last word. And we do not have to decide definitely now. But I think my objections have some merit.
Let’s expand on this.
What if Player A is told to vote Player C and Player A is the cop who has checked C and got a town result.
And not knowing if the doc can protect him doesn’t want to out himself.
I think letting LH vote is a dangerous thing.
Would ithat be any different if LH75 was a non-ghost living player?
Yes, then LH75 would vote himself, like all other players. Player A could argue with LH75 please not to vote for C if he wanted, but he would not need to out himself as the Cop for that.
And if LH75 was still alive we would not be sure he is Town. We could reach the conclusion that he is targeting C because he is Scum. We have already done something like that to him.
It is recursivity all the way down.
Let’s say Player A is cop and has cleared Player C:
Scenario #1: LH is a living player who thinks C is guilty. Player A and LH debate but ultimately LH decides to vote for Player C.
Result is one vote for player C and Player A must assess outing themselves to proect C if necessary.
Scenario #2: LH is ghost and after lots of debate LH wants Player A to add a vote for C. In either case that is a single vote for C and Player A must next assess the need for claiming their Cop knowledge.
In both scenarios Player A must decide on clearing C or waiting to see how the Day plays out. The only difference I see is that in scenario 2 Player A knows LH is honest but misguided. Everyone else also knows LH is honest. So LH has cred and may convince more players to misvote. The dynamics have changed but Player A is going to have to decide what to do regardless.
End of Act I. Let me just double-check that I don’t have any last-minute PMs, and I’ll start a new thread for Act II.
Act II is up.