On Aug 21, 2008, at 2:18 , Raph Frank wrote:
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 10:15 PM, Juho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 18, 2008, at 12:00 , James Gilmour wrote:
I have to say I just do not understand the obsession with lists.
Lists are indeed rather clumsy and maybe simplifying (trees would
On Aug 21, 2008, at 2:23 , Raph Frank wrote:
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 10:17 PM, Juho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also an STV election that has tens of candidates but allows also
shorter
votes may have problems.
The favourite party of the voter could have 20 candidates. Let's
say that
they are
On Aug 21, 2008, at 2:27 , Raph Frank wrote:
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 10:18 PM, Juho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the last parliamentary elections I had 179 candidates to choose
from.
This district elected 18 of the 200 representatives. The
population of the
district is maybe somewhat
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 11:30 PM, Juho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, this is where I see that STV and trees (or lists) can be combined in a
fruitful way. If the number of candidates is large then short votes may lead
to problems in STV. To guarantee proper inheritance of the votes it would be
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 11:33 PM, Juho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The system works quite fine. It is a basic party based open list election
using d'Hondt within each district separately.
So, the ballot has 179 names and you pick one ?
Election-Methods mailing list - see
On Aug 18, 2008, at 12:00 , James Gilmour wrote:
I have to say I just do not understand the obsession with lists.
Lists are indeed rather clumsy and maybe simplifying (trees would be
more expressive though :-).
If looking for some rationale behind lists one could say that some
groupings
On Aug 18, 2008, at 18:50 , Raph Frank wrote:
I think a system that requires people to rank 10-20+
candidates is going to run into trouble.
A system that _requires_ people to rank tens of candidates is in
trouble. Also an STV election that has tens of candidates but allows
also shorter
On Aug 18, 2008, at 19:44 , James Gilmour wrote:
Jonathan Lundell Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 4:09 PM
It's also easier to explain party lists than STV. Well, at least the
simpler variations; the more complicated MMD/top-up schemes
are pretty arcane.
Yes, maybe for the simpler party list
On Aug 18, 2008, at 20:23 , James Gilmour wrote:
I think a system that requires people to rank 10-20+
candidates is going to run into trouble.
I don't see why there should be such large numbers of candidates in
real public elections with modestly sized electoral districts.
In the last
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 10:15 PM, Juho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 18, 2008, at 12:00 , James Gilmour wrote:
I have to say I just do not understand the obsession with lists.
Lists are indeed rather clumsy and maybe simplifying (trees would be more
expressive though :-).
Yeah, if the
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 10:18 PM, Juho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 18, 2008, at 20:23 , James Gilmour wrote:
I think a system that requires people to rank 10-20+
candidates is going to run into trouble.
I don't see why there should be such large numbers of candidates in real
public
Raph Frank Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2008 7:55 PM
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 7:34 PM, James Gilmour
I don't think registered voter chosen lists will ever get off the ground.
The compromise was that each candidate would pick his own list.
No political party is ever going to tolerate that
On Aug 18, 2008, at 2:00 AM, James Gilmour wrote:
I have to say I just do not understand the obsession with lists.
I can understand why countries that have used party list PR for
many decades are (mostly) content not to change, but those countries
have at least a century of a very different
On 8/18/08, Jonathan Lundell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 18, 2008, at 2:00 AM, James Gilmour wrote:
I have to say I just do not understand the obsession with lists.
An assumption, I think, that voters won't have the patience and attention
span to evaluate a long list of candidates, and
Jonathan Lundell Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 4:09 PM
On Aug 18, 2008, at 2:00 AM, James Gilmour wrote:
I have to say I just do not understand the obsession with lists.
I can understand why countries that have used party list PR for many
decades are (mostly) content not to change,
Raph Frank Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 4:50 PM
On 8/18/08, Jonathan Lundell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 18, 2008, at 2:00 AM, James Gilmour wrote:
I have to say I just do not understand the obsession with lists.
An assumption, I think, that voters won't have the patience and
Raph Frank Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2008 12:22 AM
Jonathan Lundell wrote:
I could see a kind of proxy front end to STV elections. I'm not sure
I'm convinced it would be a good idea, or even practical to implement,
but suppose that any person or group (including parties) could
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 7:34 PM, James Gilmour [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raph Frank Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2008 12:22 AM
I think a reasonable compromise is the system where a voter
picks a list and can override it. This could include a
system where any voter can register a list prior to
On Aug 17, 2008, at 11:34 AM, James Gilmour wrote:
The evidence from countries which presently have single-member
districts but are considering reform of the voting system, is that
electors want a balance between proportional representation of the
main political groups AND guaranteed local
There could also be systems where the number of seats per district is
rather small but PR is counted at the top level. This means that you
can tweak the system to get a bit more locality and a bit more
political proportionality at the same time. (This of course has a
cost, e.g. making the
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 10:28 PM, Juho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are there any statistics from real STV-PR elections on how many votes (sum
of fragments) run out of candidates during the counting process?
The easiest way to see that is to look at how many votes are
remaing to the last count.
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 10:29 PM, Juho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One could also complete short votes (at least by default) to something
longer (e.g. party preferences or just party as a whole) to get rid of this
problem.
That is another option, the Australians seem to be against the concept of
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 10:29 PM, Juho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There could also be systems where the number of seats per district is rather
small but PR is counted at the top level. This means that you can tweak the
system to get a bit more locality and a bit more political proportionality
at
I could see a kind of proxy front end to STV elections. I'm not sure I'm
convinced it would be a good idea, or even practical to implement, but
suppose that any person or group (including parties) could register an
STV ranking, and a voter could select that ranking instead of ranking
On Aug 16, 2008, at 17:15 , Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
I could see a kind of proxy front end to STV elections. I'm not
sure I'm convinced it would be a good idea, or even practical to
implement, but suppose that any person or group (including
parties) could register an STV ranking, and
On Aug 16, 2008, at 1:00 , Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Also, such a scheme would be, I think, highly susceptible to
agenda manipulation: who decides which issue is to be effectively
on the ballot, and who decides that the candidates associated
with X and not-X are sincere?
Citizens are
Jobst Heitzig said:
It is of no help for a minority to be represented proportionally when
still a mere 51% majority can make all decisions!
raphfrk replied
I disagree. The advantage is that it allows 'on the fly'
coalition re-organisation.
I also disagree, but for a different reason
On Aug 15, 2008, at 7:40 AM, James Gilmour wrote:
Jobst Heitzig said:
It is of no help for a minority to be represented proportionally
when
still a mere 51% majority can make all decisions!
raphfrk replied
I disagree. The advantage is that it allows 'on the fly'
coalition
Some more observations on the benefits of minority representation
(and problem too).
It is much easier to make decisions against the interests of some
minority when they are not in the room when compared to the situation
where they sit in the room and give comments on the proposals.
The
On Aug 15, 2008, at 18:45 , Jonathan Lundell wrote:
On Aug 15, 2008, at 7:40 AM, James Gilmour wrote:
Jobst Heitzig said:
It is of no help for a minority to be represented proportionally
when
still a mere 51% majority can make all decisions!
raphfrk replied
I disagree. The advantage is
On Aug 15, 2008, at 9:23 AM, Juho wrote:
On Aug 15, 2008, at 18:45 , Jonathan Lundell wrote:
On Aug 15, 2008, at 7:40 AM, James Gilmour wrote:
Jobst Heitzig said:
It is of no help for a minority to be represented proportionally
when
still a mere 51% majority can make all decisions!
On Aug 15, 2008, at 22:27 , Jonathan Lundell wrote:
On Aug 15, 2008, at 9:23 AM, Juho wrote:
On Aug 15, 2008, at 18:45 , Jonathan Lundell wrote:
On Aug 15, 2008, at 7:40 AM, James Gilmour wrote:
Jobst Heitzig said:
It is of no help for a minority to be represented
proportionally when
On Aug 15, 2008, at 3:00 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Also, such a scheme would be, I think, highly susceptible to
agenda manipulation: who decides which issue is to be effectively
on the ballot, and who decides that the candidates associated with
X and not-X are sincere?
Citizens are
Also, such a scheme would be, I think, highly susceptible to agenda
manipulation: who decides which issue is to be effectively on the
ballot, and who decides that the candidates associated with X and
not-X are sincere?
Citizens are free to form such lists. Each list may support and oppose
Jonathan Lundell wrote:
I could see a kind of proxy front end to STV elections. I'm not sure
I'm convinced it would be a good idea, or even practical to implement,
but suppose that any person or group (including parties) could
register an STV ranking, and a voter could select that ranking
35 matches
Mail list logo
