-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
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
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
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
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
[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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-
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
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
, 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
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
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,
--- 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
20 matches
Mail list logo
