I like it. It looks as though in the non-partisan case (or one where
there is exactly one candidate from each party), the system equates to
cumulative voting. But at the opposite end, where all candidates belong
to a single party, it's equivalent to approval voting.
Or at least a multi-winner form of approval voting. But in that case it
seems like it would be in the interest of at least some of the party
members to split the party. I wonder if there's a corresponding
incentive to merge when there are too many parties?
LAYTON Craig wrote:
>
> I've been thinking about ways to improve list proportional representation.
> I generally like STV for public elections, but it has a number of drawbacks,
> and is not always viable.
>
> List PR is very simple, and using a d'Hondt count will result in better
> proportionality than any other method (aside from methods with variable
> voting power). The problem is always the method of deciding which
> candidates from each party get elected.
>
> This is my first thought - it is a free list method, where voters can mark a
> single box corresponding to a single party. A regular d'Hondt count is used
> to determine how many seats each party is awarded. However, voters have the
> option of voting "below the line" for candidates, rather than parties. A
> voter can vote for as many candidates as they like. A voter's vote is
> divided amoung the parties proportional to the number of candidates they
> vote for in each party. ie If a voter votes for 2 candidates in party A, 1
> candidate in party B & 1 candidate in party C, party A gets .5 of a vote,
> and parties B & C .25 each. These fractional amounts are added to the above
> the line (whole) votes to determine how many seats each party gets. Seats
> are then awarded to the candidates in each party with the most below the
> line votes.
>
> So, parties are elected based on plurality/cumulative type voting, and
> individual candidates using what basically amounts to approval.
>
> It might even be better to avoid the above the line voting totally, and only
> have voting for candidates, but I've not yet decided on that. Thoughts?
