Re: [EM] PR in student government
Some short observations: - It looked to me that the original proposal was planned for single- seat districts. Maybe the party level outcome would be decided fist and only then the individual approval votes within that party. - Small parties could now also win the seat. - There are also multi-winner Approval based methods (e.g. http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_approval_voting). Juho On Apr 24, 2007, at 1:50 , Gervase Lam wrote: Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 14:28:56 -0400 From: Howard Swerdfeger Subject: Re: [EM] PR in student government Voting Instructions: 1. You only have ONE vote. 2. Place an X in the box NEXT to your candidate of choice. 3. Your vote counts both for your candidate and your party. Party AParty B Party C Independent [ ]Candidate1 [ ]Candidate1 [ ]Candidate1 [ ]Candidate1 [ ]Candidate2 [ ]Candidate2 [X]Candidate2 [ ]Candidate3 [ ]Candidate3 [ ]Candidate3 --- Seats would be allocated proportionally by party. But the member of the party that gets each seat would be determined by the number of votes the received. One slight variation to this is to use Approval voting for both the voting of the party and candidate. That is, a voter can approve as many parties as the voter wishes and as many candidates as wished. Alternatively, the Approval and Plurality voting could be mixed (i.e. Plurality voting for parties and Approval voting for the candidates or vice versa). Also (for either Plurality or Approval) one could allow voting of candidates on lists that a voter did not vote for. But may be disallowing this would be better. This type of thing was discussed on this list before: http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods- electorama.com/2004-March/012455.html http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods- electorama.com/2004-March/012503.html Thanks, Gervase. election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info ___ Copy addresses and emails from any email account to Yahoo! Mail - quick, easy and free. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/trueswitch2.html election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] PR in student government
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 14:28:56 -0400 From: Howard Swerdfeger Subject: Re: [EM] PR in student government Voting Instructions: 1. You only have ONE vote. 2. Place an X in the box NEXT to your candidate of choice. 3. Your vote counts both for your candidate and your party. Party A Party B Party C Independent [ ]Candidate1 [ ]Candidate1 [ ]Candidate1 [ ]Candidate1 [ ]Candidate2 [ ]Candidate2 [X]Candidate2 [ ]Candidate3 [ ]Candidate3 [ ]Candidate3 --- Seats would be allocated proportionally by party. But the member of the party that gets each seat would be determined by the number of votes the received. One slight variation to this is to use Approval voting for both the voting of the party and candidate. That is, a voter can approve as many parties as the voter wishes and as many candidates as wished. Alternatively, the Approval and Plurality voting could be mixed (i.e. Plurality voting for parties and Approval voting for the candidates or vice versa). Also (for either Plurality or Approval) one could allow voting of candidates on lists that a voter did not vote for. But may be disallowing this would be better. This type of thing was discussed on this list before: http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods- electorama.com/2004-March/012455.html http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods- electorama.com/2004-March/012503.html Thanks, Gervase. election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] PR in student government
On Apr 17, 2007, at 21:28 , Howard Swerdfeger wrote: Again, I recommend a Regional Open List System. It would be my second choice (behind STV) in therms of results given the requirements you mentioned. But it would be my first choice if one was to give more weight to simplicity of counting and simplicity for the voter. I agree. For me the three very basic (vanilla flavour) multi-winner methods are: - STV = if one wants to avoid parties; expressive votes; computer based calculation for fractional votes - open lists = if parties and/or groups are used; simple manual calculation - single member districts = does not provide full PR; clear links between representatives and citizens of the region There are many mixes and variants of these but I think these three basic methods already pretty well stretch the space. Ballot Would look something like this --- Voting Instructions: 1. You only have ONE vote. 2. Place an X in the box NEXT to your candidate of choice. 3. Your vote counts both for your candidate and your party. Party A Party B Party C Independent [ ]Candidate1 [ ]Candidate1 [ ]Candidate1 [ ]Candidate1 [ ]Candidate2 [ ]Candidate2 [X]Candidate2 [ ]Candidate3 [ ]Candidate3 [ ]Candidate3 --- One very simple alternative is to just write the number of one's favourite candidate in a blank ballot paper. The numbers of the candidates are advertised elsewhere. Seats would be allocated proportionally by party. But the member of the party that gets each seat would be determined by the number of votes the received. This basic version works reasonably well. The candidate election process within parties (plurality like) could however be improved (if wanted) (e.g. by making the group structure more detailed). Juho ___ All New Yahoo! Mail Tired of [EMAIL PROTECTED]@! come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] PR in student government
James Gilmour jgilmour at globalnet.co.uk raphfrk at netscape.net Sent: 16 April 2007 20:08 It might be easier to explain. The real problem with PR-STV is the fractional transfers. They are not very easy to explain. Fractional transfers are absolutely essential for STV-PR (unless you accept a small element of chance). Without the correct transfers of surpluses you cannot get a proportional result. Some students' unions in the UK use this corrupted version, but it cannot rightly be called STV-PR because it distorts the proportionality expressed by the voters. It seems to me that this method is pretty close to picking random votes for the surplus transfers. Once a candidate hits the quota, he stops getting any additional votes. In fact, random selection for surplus transfers might be an even easier way to explain it. If the votes were: 60: A1A2A3B1B2 40: B1B2A1A2A3 and 3 seats to allocate, the counting would go something like quota = 100/4 = 25 After approx 42 votes are counted, the count would be A1: 25 A2: 0 A3: 0 B1: 17 B2: 0 A1 is deemed elected, the 60 group will not start been given to A2 After approx another 20 votes, the totals will be A1: 25 (elected) A2: 12 A3: 0 B1: 25 B2: 0 B1 is elected B1 is deemed elected. After approx another 22 votes, the totals will be A1: 25 (elected) A2: 25 (elected) a3: 0 B1: 25 (elected) B2: 9 This gives the 2-1 split of the seats as required by the Droop quota. Raphfrk Interesting site what if anyone could modify the laws www.wikocracy.com Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection. election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] PR in student government
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax Sent: 17 April 2007 15:50 Just two points to which I wish to respond. The ballots could also be counted sequentially, as needed. I dislike this, because I think every vote should be counted, even if supposedly moot. If I went to the trouble to cast it, it shouldn't be tossed in the trash! This is an understandable social choice interpretation of ALL the information on ALL the ballot papers. But that is not what STV-PR is about, and certainly not where it came from. You vote for your first choice. Your second preference is a contingency choice, to be brought into play only if your first choice is already elected and cannot proportionately represent you as well, or has so little support that he/she has no prospect of election and is excluded (eliminated). And so on. And of course, originally it was your vote, i.e. your whole vote, that was transferred. If I was a candidate for office, and it turns out that many people voted for me, but not at a high enough preference for me to be elected, I'd hate not to know this! The result might actually be encouraging. Or not, depending on what is in those buried votes The problem of excluding a Condorcet winner is unavoidable in STV-PR so long as we give an absolute undertaking to every voter that under no circumstances can a lower preference count against a higher preference. Most proponents of STV-PR regard that undertaking as extremely important, and that view is, in my experience, shared by the overwhelming majority of the electors with whom I have ever discussed STV. Once you change that solemn undertaking to save a Condorcet winner from exclusion, you open the door to tactical voting which is otherwise impossible in real STV public elections, i.e. with large numbers of electors whose preference patterns you cannot possibly know. This exclusion rule makes STV-PR non-monotonic, but that is not generally regarded as important and certainly nothing like so important as ensuring that a lower preference can never count against a higher preference. Also, the non-monotonic effect cannot be exploited by either the candidates or the voters, so it is of no practical effect. It would be nice, but we cannot have it all - at least, not all at once!! James Gilmour election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] PR in student government
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 17 April 2007 09:37 James Gilmour jgilmour at globalnet.co.uk raphfrk at netscape.net Sent: 16 April 2007 20:08 It might be easier to explain. The real problem with PR-STV is the fractional transfers. They are not very easy to explain. Fractional transfers are absolutely essential for STV-PR (unless you accept a small element of chance). Without the correct transfers of surpluses you cannot get a proportional result. Some students' unions in the UK use this corrupted version, but it cannot rightly be called STV-PR because it distorts the proportionality expressed by the voters. It seems to me that this method is pretty close to picking random votes for the surplus transfers. I am aware of five different methods of transferring surpluses in STV-PR and none of them could properly be described as picking random votes. That procedure was abandoned a long time ago. The only rules that do not involve fractional transfers are the rules used for elections to the Dáil Éireann. Those rules do involve selecting ballot papers at random, but only after the ballot papers have been sorted into sub-parcels ready for transfer to the next available preference. A proportionate number of papers is then selected at random from each sub-parcel. Thus the effect of random selection is minimised. The ballot papers are transferred at a value of one vote in all circumstances. The other four methods of transferring surpluses (Gregory Method, Inclusive Gregory Method, Weighted Inclusive Gregory Method and Meek) all involve fractional transfers. The principles are not difficult to explain or comprehend. Once a candidate hits the quota, he stops getting any additional votes. This is the correct procedure for transfers in accordance with the Dáil Éireann rules and the Gregory Method (last parcel only). But it is not the correct procedure for transfers in accordance with the Weighted Inclusive Gregory Method or Meek.. If applied to either of those methods that procedure would give inconsistent results. (The Inclusive Gregory Method should never be used because it is fundamentally flawed as it violates the one person, one vote principle.) In fact, random selection for surplus transfers might be an even easier way to explain it. Such an explanation would be both wrong and very unhelpful. The Gregory Method (fractional transfers) was devised in 1880 to remove the element of chance that is unavoidable with any method involving random selection of ballot papers. Most electors would now reject any voting system that depended on random selection. That said, random selection has survived as acceptable in Ireland, though in the refined form described above. When STV-PR was re-introduced into Northern Ireland in 1973, it was the Gregory Method that was adopted. Australia switched to the Gregory Method long ago; they then changed to the (flawed) Inclusive Gregory Method for their Federal Senate elections, but Western Australia has since seen the light and is switching to the Weighted Inclusive Gregory Method for its state elections. In Scotland we shall use the Weighted Inclusive Gregory Method for the Local Government elections that will be held on 3 May. James Gilmour election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] PR in student government
As it happens, I've never paid attention to the details of how PR-STV works. So, in a sense, my mind is free of distraction on the point, and what I come up with *may* represent an intuitive approach of some value. If my intuition is sound, it may also match what has come to be seen as a more mature PR method. Or not. In any case, there may be some pedagogical value to be extracted from these considerations. First of all, when I first heard of Single Transferable Vote, I misunderstood it. I misunderstood it in a way that actually suggests what I'd call an Advanced Election Method. Such methods are ones that introduce serious reforms such as making direct democracy practical on a large scale. What I (mis)understood was that votes went to candidates at the voter's choice, and that any excess votes going to a candidate could be transfered *by the candidate.* Likewise, any votes short of a quota could be transferred or combined with other such vote groups, in order to create winners. This, of course, is a simple form of Asset Voting. My misunderstanding -- which seemed so attractive to me -- predates my contact with Warren Smith who formalized Asset. But as soon as I knew that STV had a ranked ballot, well, there goes that idea! (As far as being something that was actually being used anywhere.) Okay, so what then? Well, the obvious idea is that when a winner has been created, additional ballots being counted look at second place choices. This, however, has the obvious objection that winners can then depend upon counting sequence. And one reasonable solution, to a degree, is to count the ballots in random sequence, which, overall, would *usually* -- except when it is close -- choose fair winners. But this suffers from the problem of not being reproducible (it's possible to make it reproducible, but at the cost of additional complications). So what to do? Well, the next obvious idea is to fractionally distribute the votes, so that the collection of voters who voted for A in first place, all of them, if there are excess votes for A, have fractional votes remaining to be cast for their second place choices. The result is that each person has cast a sum of votes equal to one. So if a quota is 100 votes, and A gets 150 votes, each ballot for A becomes, now, 1/3 of a vote, 2/3 of each ballot having been used to elect A. So the second choices on those ballots get 1/3 of a vote each. And then this is applied recursively, when second choices are elected, etc. Seems fairly simple to me? Does it match actual usage? In this scenario, it might be tempting to round off the numbers. I see no reason at all to do this (at least not to round them to the nearest whole vote. Maybe to 1/1000 vote or some other fraction of a vote.) At this point it's only numbers and the skill involving in adding, subtracting, and dividing isn't all that great! The procedure also allows all the ballots to be counted first. So it's reproducible for audit. Essentially what one wants is a list of the ballot types, with the number of votes for each type. Easiest, I'd think, if the list is categorized by first place vote, then second, etc. Turning this list of votes into a list of winners could easily be done by hand, unless the number of candidates gets large. The ballots could also be counted sequentially, as needed. I dislike this, because I think every vote should be counted, even if supposedly moot. If I went to the trouble to cast it, it shouldn't be tossed in the trash! If I was a candidate for office, and it turns out that many people voted for me, but not at a high enough preference for me to be elected, I'd hate not to know this! The result might actually be encouraging. Or not, depending on what is in those buried votes election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] PR in student government
From: Howard Swerdfeger Sent: 17 April 2007 17:37 Tactical voting is easy in STV. Step 1 : Determine what your preferred ranking is. Step 2 : Determine who is sure to lose the election Step 3 : Rank all candidates you are sure will loose above the rest of your real list The only flaw that I see is if you elect someone from your sure to lose list. Precisely!! If enough other voters pick on the same loser because they are playing the same game, your loser will become a winner. There is good evidence from real public elections with STV-PR that attempts at tactical voting of this kind are unwise. The only good advice for STV-PR public elections, i.e. with large numbers of voters whose preferences you cannot possibly know, is Do NOT attempt to vote tactically. Vote positively for the candidates you really want. James Gilmour election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] PR in student government
At 11:20 AM 4/17/2007, James Gilmour wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax Sent: 17 April 2007 15:50 The ballots could also be counted sequentially, as needed. I dislike this, because I think every vote should be counted, even if supposedly moot. If I went to the trouble to cast it, it shouldn't be tossed in the trash! This is an understandable social choice interpretation of ALL the information on ALL the ballot papers. But that is not what STV-PR is about, and certainly not where it came from. Mr. Gilmour may not have understood what I wrote. I did not intend to indicate that the lower ranked votes should be used to elect winners. You vote for your first choice. Your second preference is a contingency choice, to be brought into play only if your first choice is already elected and cannot proportionately represent you as well, or has so little support that he/she has no prospect of election and is excluded (eliminated). And so on. And of course, originally it was your vote, i.e. your whole vote, that was transferred. The system asks me to rank contingency choices. I'm saying that the information provided shouldn't be left uncounted. It's entirely another matter if it is used to elect. What I'm saying is that there is a social value in counting all the votes, there is a cost to obtaining this value (voters have to fill out the ballot in order to generate the source data), and those lower ranks matter. Now, where an environment requires voters to rank all candidates, it's a bit of a different matter. Still, it would be valuable information to know that such and such a candidate ranked *last*. My vote includes all the information I enter on the ballot. My electing vote is extracted from that information and is used to create a winner. I didn't claim that this information was what STV-PR is all about. It is primarily a method for creating a proportional representation assembly. The information I'm talking about is not directly relevant to that goal. But, I assert, it should still be made available. If it is determined that public funding shouldn't be spent on that, then ways could be provided for private funding (such as through nonprofits or media) to cover the costs of counting. If nobody is sufficiently interested to count all the votes, that's another matter. but I think there would be interest. (I have proposed that ballot images should be public record, and that this could solve many security issues. It does raise, potentially, problems with vote-buying, allegedly a serious issue -- I doubt it --, but those problems already exist. Essentially, incumbents or those who are connected with them, in general, already have access to the ballots themselves, and either vote-buying is moot -- in which case the vote buyers wasted their money, as they might deserve -- or it was effective, in which case those who benefited from it may have preferential access to the ballots. And it's possible to handle ballots and ballot imaging in a way that would make reliable identification of ballots sufficiently difficult. If ballot images are public, then anyone can count votes; and part of the proposal was that ballots be serialized -- after being cast -- so that it becomes trivial to combine counts from many people to produce reliable and verifiable overall counts.) If I was a candidate for office, and it turns out that many people voted for me, but not at a high enough preference for me to be elected, I'd hate not to know this! The result might actually be encouraging. Or not, depending on what is in those buried votes The problem of excluding a Condorcet winner is unavoidable in STV-PR so long as we give an absolute undertaking to every voter that under no circumstances can a lower preference count against a higher preference. That's right. But I was not addressing this issue at all. I think that Mr. Gilmour did indeed misunderstand my comments. Most proponents of STV-PR regard that undertaking as extremely important, and that view is, in my experience, shared by the overwhelming majority of the electors with whom I have ever discussed STV. Once you change that solemn undertaking to save a Condorcet winner from exclusion, you open the door to tactical voting which is otherwise impossible in real STV public elections, i.e. with large numbers of electors whose preference patterns you cannot possibly know. This exclusion rule makes STV-PR non-monotonic, but that is not generally regarded as important and certainly nothing like so important as ensuring that a lower preference can never count against a higher preference. Also, the non-monotonic effect cannot be exploited by either the candidates or the voters, so it is of no practical effect. It would be nice, but we cannot have it all - at least, not all at once!! I wasn't proposing *any* change in the method. Only in procedures and practices *around* the method. From what I understand, it is rare that
Re: [EM] PR in student government
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax Sent: 17 April 2007 17:15 I didn't claim that this information was what STV-PR is all about. It is primarily a method for creating a proportional representation assembly. The information I'm talking about is not directly relevant to that goal. But, I assert, it should still be made available. If it is determined that public funding shouldn't be spent on that, then ways could be provided for private funding (such as through nonprofits or media) to cover the costs of counting. If nobody is sufficiently interested to count all the votes, that's another matter. but I think there would be interest. You may be interested to know that in our elections on 3 May, electors will complete conventional ballot papers (real paper) with an old fashioned stubby pencil (chained to the polling booth) or vote by post. The ballot papers for the Local Government STV elections (and for the Scottish Parliament elections that are being held on the same day - MMP voting system!!) will be scanned and data files created by intelligent optical character recognition software. The ballot data will then be counted electronically. So the full ballot data will be readily available in an electronic format and COULD be published in a suitably anonymised form, i.e. removing all references to the ballot paper number from the file of ballot data. With thousands of voters in every one of the 353 elections and only small numbers of candidates in each of the 353 wards (local government electoral district), the chances of identifying any voter from a unique sequence of preferences are probably so small that they can be safely set aside in the greater public interest of making the full ballot data available at ward level. This was done with the full STV-PR ballot data for three constituencies in Ireland in 2002. Unfortunately, our government (= Scottish Executive) has followed the conventional approach to paper records relating to elections and so the Election Rules specifically prohibit the release or publication of any of the electronic information although all the electronic information has to be retained for four years (until the next election). However, following some agitation on this issue, the government has agreed to carry out a consultation on this after the elections are over. So we may yet see the full STV ballot data from all our 2007 local government elections. Then we might have independent validation of the results and lots of interesting (and amusing) political and sociological analysis of the preference patterns. James Gilmour election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] PR in student government
On Apr 17, 2007, at 9:54 AM, James Gilmour wrote: From: Howard Swerdfeger Sent: 17 April 2007 17:37 Tactical voting is easy in STV. Step 1 : Determine what your preferred ranking is. Step 2 : Determine who is sure to lose the election Step 3 : Rank all candidates you are sure will loose above the rest of your real list The only flaw that I see is if you elect someone from your sure to lose list. Precisely!! If enough other voters pick on the same loser because they are playing the same game, your loser will become a winner. There is good evidence from real public elections with STV-PR that attempts at tactical voting of this kind are unwise. The only good advice for STV-PR public elections, i.e. with large numbers of voters whose preferences you cannot possibly know, is Do NOT attempt to vote tactically. Vote positively for the candidates you really want. James Gilmour Alternatively, use Meek's or Warren's method, either of which is immune to this particular strategy. election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] PR in student government
Well, as far as I'm thinking, standard STV is already too complicated to explain. Introducing Meek/Warren would only make it more likely to fail (this has to be voted on by the student government and the student body) due to the added complexity of explaining them. I don't even want to think of such things as CPO-STV - trying to introduce that would surely spell the end of any possibility of voting reform here. I know the common idea behind explaining STV is don't talk about the counting too much. However, I know this WILL NOT work in my case, because we already have a ranked-ballot system in our modified Borda (where you only rank as many candidates as there are open seats). Thus, the counting is the only difference - and convincing people to go from a simple (but dumb and disproportional) point system to STV has been anything but easy as a result. I think that if we had at-large plurality it would be much simpler to bring STV in - in fact, STV was actually used a long time ago (until the 1980s) at U-M but scrapped in favor of our current system due to complexity... Any suggestions? I'm currently pushing the proportional aspect of the system, as that seems to be the primary thing that sets it apart from the status quo. It's also the reason I see it as a big issue - elections have been rather uncompetitive thanks for to the tendency for the establishment to become entrenched... Tim On 4/17/07, Jonathan Lundell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 17, 2007, at 9:54 AM, James Gilmour wrote: From: Howard Swerdfeger Sent: 17 April 2007 17:37 Tactical voting is easy in STV. Step 1 : Determine what your preferred ranking is. Step 2 : Determine who is sure to lose the election Step 3 : Rank all candidates you are sure will loose above the rest of your real list The only flaw that I see is if you elect someone from your sure to lose list. Precisely!! If enough other voters pick on the same loser because they are playing the same game, your loser will become a winner. There is good evidence from real public elections with STV-PR that attempts at tactical voting of this kind are unwise. The only good advice for STV-PR public elections, i.e. with large numbers of voters whose preferences you cannot possibly know, is Do NOT attempt to vote tactically. Vote positively for the candidates you really want. James Gilmour Alternatively, use Meek's or Warren's method, either of which is immune to this particular strategy. election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] PR in student government
Any suggestions? I'm currently pushing the proportional aspect of the system, as that seems to be the primary thing that sets it apart from the status quo. It's also the reason I see it as a big issue - elections have been rather uncompetitive thanks for to the tendency for the establishment to become entrenched... Again, I recommend a Regional Open List System. It would be my second choice (behind STV) in therms of results given the requirements you mentioned. But it would be my first choice if one was to give more weight to simplicity of counting and simplicity for the voter. Ballot Would look something like this --- Voting Instructions: 1. You only have ONE vote. 2. Place an X in the box NEXT to your candidate of choice. 3. Your vote counts both for your candidate and your party. Party A Party B Party C Independent [ ]Candidate1 [ ]Candidate1 [ ]Candidate1 [ ]Candidate1 [ ]Candidate2 [ ]Candidate2 [X]Candidate2 [ ]Candidate3 [ ]Candidate3 [ ]Candidate3 --- Seats would be allocated proportionally by party. But the member of the party that gets each seat would be determined by the number of votes the received. PDF of a proposal for Regional Open List in Ontario http://www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca/documents/633004860208648190_Rice_RegionalPartyList_Final__0.pdf Power Point summary of the above PDF http://citizen2citizen.ca/sites/default/files/Rice_RegionalPartyList_Presentation.ppt If on the other had you have your mind fixed on STV and are looking for arguments in favour of STV and ways to convince the populace. * point out it is used at the national level in Ireland * It produces somewhat proportional results * It is candidate focused and not Party focused * It is more accountable, (elected members answer to 2 masters. The party and his constituents.) * counting is easy and can be done with off the shelf Freedom software packages. Tim On 4/17/07, Jonathan Lundell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 17, 2007, at 9:54 AM, James Gilmour wrote: From: Howard Swerdfeger Sent: 17 April 2007 17:37 Tactical voting is easy in STV. Step 1 : Determine what your preferred ranking is. Step 2 : Determine who is sure to lose the election Step 3 : Rank all candidates you are sure will loose above the rest of your real list The only flaw that I see is if you elect someone from your sure to lose list. Precisely!! If enough other voters pick on the same loser because they are playing the same game, your loser will become a winner. There is good evidence from real public elections with STV-PR that attempts at tactical voting of this kind are unwise. The only good advice for STV-PR public elections, i.e. with large numbers of voters whose preferences you cannot possibly know, is Do NOT attempt to vote tactically. Vote positively for the candidates you really want. James Gilmour Alternatively, use Meek's or Warren's method, either of which is immune to this particular strategy. election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
[EM] PR in student government...
Hi, I e-mailed this list a while back about election methods in student government. I'm at the University of Michigan, and we use a variant of the Borda count for our elections where you get as many votes as open seats. Slates of candidates typically contest elections as parties, and most discussion of elections revolves around these parties. Anyway, the system as-is works better than at-large plurality, but it still leaves much to be desired. The biggest problem with the current system is that the largest party slate always wins a disproportionately high number of seats - so large, in fact, that competition has generally withered away. As a result, I'm looking at proportional representation systems - and possibly introducing one as a ballot initiative for next year. However, I have experienced great trouble in finding a system that people like. Single Transferable Vote seems ideal, but it has the drawback of being complex (and, as a result, hard for people to comprehend). Party lists are simpler, but they force voters to support an entire party - not ideal at all. Does anyone have any suggestions? I was actually recently elected to a representative seat as the only independent candidate to defeat the dominant party slate, and am planning to introduce something. I just need to be able to convince others... Tim Hull election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] PR in student government...
Tim and all, Among colleges and universities adopting proportional or semi-proportional systems, STV is the overwhelming favorite. If students at (for example) Lane Community College in Eugene, Oregon can figure it out, then students at the University of Michigan probably can too. The (alleged) complexity of STV is entirely a matter of the counting process; the task for the voter is actually very simple. Having said that, the conventional ways of explaining the count invariably lose audiences, and we need to learn how to present it better. If you currently had district elections (from dormitories or neighborhoods), you could propose mixed member proportional (MMP). But that doesn't sound like your situation. Bob Richard Publications Director Californians for Electoral Reform http://www.cfer.org P.O. Box 235 Kentfield, CA 94914-0235 (415) 256-9393 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Tim Hull Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 9:30 AM To: election-methods@electorama.com Subject: [EM] PR in student government... Hi, I e-mailed this list a while back about election methods in student government. I'm at the University of Michigan, and we use a variant of the Borda count for our elections where you get as many votes as open seats. Slates of candidates typically contest elections as parties, and most discussion of elections revolves around these parties. Anyway, the system as-is works better than at-large plurality, but it still leaves much to be desired. The biggest problem with the current system is that the largest party slate always wins a disproportionately high number of seats - so large, in fact, that competition has generally withered away. As a result, I'm looking at proportional representation systems - and possibly introducing one as a ballot initiative for next year. However, I have experienced great trouble in finding a system that people like. Single Transferable Vote seems ideal, but it has the drawback of being complex (and, as a result, hard for people to comprehend). Party lists are simpler, but they force voters to support an entire party - not ideal at all. Does anyone have any suggestions? I was actually recently elected to a representative seat as the only independent candidate to defeat the dominant party slate, and am planning to introduce something. I just need to be able to convince others... Tim Hull election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] PR in student government...
Tim Hull wrote: Hi, I e-mailed this list a while back about election methods in student government. I'm at the University of Michigan, and we use a variant of the Borda count for our elections where you get as many votes as open seats. Slates of candidates typically contest elections as parties, and most discussion of elections revolves around these parties. Anyway, the system as-is works better than at-large plurality, but it still leaves much to be desired. The biggest problem with the current system is that the largest party slate always wins a disproportionately high number of seats - so large, in fact, that competition has generally withered away. As a result, I'm looking at proportional representation systems - and possibly introducing one as a ballot initiative for next year. However, I have experienced great trouble in finding a system that people like. Single Transferable Vote seems ideal, but it has the drawback of being complex (and, as a result, hard for people to comprehend). Party lists are simpler, but they force voters to support an entire party - not ideal at all. I would say that from my perspective at least STV is much easer for the voter to understand (what has to be done on the ballot) then Borda count, Although Borda is usually easer to count, once all the voting is done. you don't actually mention in this email what is being elected. but assuming is is some type of council with all members having the same rank and 3-5 seats are coming up for grabs at a time. I would recommend STV, approval or range, I really dislike party list systems. But they are at least more palatable when done in a best looser method. If you recommend range make sure it is simple. ie 1-5 range with instructions to circle the best answer. you should also allow the voter to Leave a candidate blank. However, if your elections include positions like Science Rep, Arts Rep, Engineering Rep, etc... I would suggest a version of MMP with a best looser method of top up. good luck Does anyone have any suggestions? I was actually recently elected to a representative seat as the only independent candidate to defeat the dominant party slate, and am planning to introduce something. I just need to be able to convince others... Tim Hull election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] PR in student government...
Tim asked: How would MMP be done, anyway - especially with uneven constituencies? MMP (at least in the form that I know it) would require single-member consitutuencies, which rules it in many university settings. I mentioned it previously only because it is the most widely suggested alternative to STV, at least for public elections. Bob Richard Publications Director Californians for Electoral Reform http://www.cfer.org P.O. Box 235 Kentfield, CA 94914-0235 (415) 256-9393 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Tim Hull Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 10:49 AM To: election-methods@electorama.com Subject: Re: [EM] PR in student government... It's not a strict Borda count (ranking all candidates) per se - it's a point system where your first place vote is worth n votes, second n-1, and so on, n being the number of open seats. What is being elected are representative seats for student government divided proportionally by school/college.and divided between two yearly elections (fall and spring) . The college of Literature, Science, and Arts (LSA) is the largest, receiving 19 seats (9 in one election, 10 in another). Other schools have anywhere from 7 seats (4 in one election, 3 in the other) to 1 seat (assigned to one election or the other). Overall, most of the seats (and the ones that really matter) are elected in the multi-seat constituencies. Approval and range wouldn't work any better than our existing system, as they aren't proportional (i.e. one slate can sweep seats easily). It does seem like STV is best - however, it does seem harder to explain than the existing system. How would MMP be done, anyway - especially with uneven constituencies? Tim election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
[EM] PR in student government...
Bob Richard electorama at robertjrichard.com wrote: The (alleged) complexity of STV is entirely a matter of the counting process; the task for the voter is actually very simple. Having said that, the conventional ways of explaining the count invariably lose audiences, and we need to learn how to present it better. There was a site which proposed this as an STV-PR method. Quote = votes/(seats + 1) , rounded up go through each vote in order assign vote to highest ranked remaining candidate on ballot remaining means not elected or eliminated a candidate is elected if he reaches the quota When the pool of votes is empty, eliminating the lowest candidate and return ballots assigned to him to the pool keep going until the number of candidates = number of elected candidates It does have the disadvantage that the order of the votes could have an effect, this leads to some randomness. It might be easier to explain. The real problem with PR-STV is the fractional transfers. They are not very easy to explain. Raphfrk Interesting site what if anyone could modify the laws www.wikocracy.com Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection. election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] PR in student government...
Tim Hull Sent: 16 April 2007 17:30 As a result, I'm looking at proportional representation systems - and possibly introducing one as a ballot initiative for next year. However, I have experienced great trouble in finding a system that people like. Single Transferable Vote seems ideal, but it has the drawback of being complex (and, as a result, hard for people to comprehend). Party lists are simpler, but they force voters to support an entire party - not ideal at all. Does anyone have any suggestions? STV-PR is the only voting system that makes any real sense in the situation you describe. The principles of STV-PR are extremely easy to explain. There are several different accepted methods of counting the votes, and they do, in some circumstances, give small differences in the results. The important point is to choose one of the valid sets of recognised rules (with a clear and unambiguous wording) and stick to them. Make sure you avoid all of the corrupted versions, eg simplified versions with no transfers of surpluses. The principles of any of the counts are not difficult to explain. None of the arithmetic (long division, long multiplication and decimal fractions), except Meek STV, is beyond the last year of Primary School (age 11 years). STV-PR is extremely easy to implement. Student organisations in many UK universities and colleges have computerised the preferential voting (through a secure student portal). There are open source computer programs readily available that will count the ballot data according to any of the versions of the rules that have ever been dreamed up. James Gilmour election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] PR in student government...
--- Tim Hull [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As a result, I'm looking at proportional representation systems - and possibly introducing one as a ballot initiative for next year. However, I have experienced great trouble in finding a system that people like. Single Transferable Vote seems ideal, but it has the drawback of being complex (and, as a result, hard for people to comprehend). Party lists are simpler, but they force voters to support an entire party - not ideal at all. Tim, I see two problems here: 1) Succumbing to the perspective that the complexity of tabulating votes is or should be a primary point for evaluating an election method. 2) Believing that STV is difficult for people to understand. Focus on current problems and the benefits of change. Focus on the big picture, the failures of flawed student governance. What are the problems on campus that resonate with students? That is where the gold mine of persuasion lies. It should be easy enough to find problems with party dominated politics, even more so with single-party dominated politics. Borda election methods are clearly implicated. For example, Borda methods disproprotionately reward having similar candidates run. I'm guessing that unlike twenty or thirty years ago, student votes are being tabulated by computer now and that students may even be vote electronically. On this scale, the logistical benefits of using Borda, as a summable method, never outweighed its flaws, and with current technologies, the logistical benefits simply evaporate. When they need it, give people an appropriately tailored explanation of STV. The general rule is to keep it simple and short, especially at first. In that regard, voting experts sometimes give the worst explanations. When someone wants a drink, don't give them a firehose. It doesn't work. When you talk about features of STV, always relate them back to the problems of the current system and the benefits of making a change. STV can be explained to just about anyone in 2 minutes or less. Whether it is a 12 year-old student or someone with a Ph.D., after two minutes, they can walk away with an understanding of key points about not only why it is good, but how it is done. Much of that can be packaged into even shorter messages. You do have some advantages. Students already have experience voting with ranked ballots. Students also aren't committed to the current system simply because it is the way it has always been done or because they think it is the only way there is to do elections. The real challenge is developing a message that will convince the beneficiaries of the current system that they should support making a change. Some changes may just have to start at a grassroots level. -- David Cary __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
