Mr. Davison, I knew some people would make me regret my contest, but I was not thinking of you...
Gosh my english is awful. Yes I like your participation, thanks. Now for a feasibility reason, I need a minimum of rigour. First what do you mean by a partisan or non-partisan election (for me any election is partisan except if all voters want to submit a blank ballot)? Second, I am just interested in two problems: 1) A bunch of voters have to select a single option among several proposals. I retain your favorite method: > ** For Single-Seat elections I recommend Alternative Vote aka Instant > Runoff Voting aka IRVing. In my years of studying election methods I have > not been able to find nor design any single-seat method better than Instant > Runoff Voting. I am NOT interested in treating the particular case of: > ** For the American Presidential election I recommend My American > Presidential Election Plan, which keeps the Electoral College but weds it > to IRVing in the states. My personal opinion is that intermediate can only add more discrete misrepresentation, but I understand any change would be bounded by the need of a new agreement to change your constitution, and it would be a particular case for each country, and bla bla bla... I am sure there are many list about this issue. Just start a contest of your own. 2) A bunch of voters have to fill a chamber of representatives. Again, I am not interested in considering every special case (congress, senate, parliament,...). Obviously because I do not want to have to take in account the feasibility of dragging the actual reality of each special case toward the best proposal without having all the constitutional experts of all countries running after me. So YOU can define how areas, districts or districts within districts will be used. YOU can match them with the best way to fill a chamber of representative, or with all your favorite ways to fill a chamber of representative if you think they are all valid. I do not care if the title takes three lines to obtain a fully defined proposal. >From what I have understood (you are making my life miserable) you would have at least two district representation and two multi-membered election method, so at least 4 proposals. Maybe all combinations are not worth. The more proposal you make the less time the others will take to read your proposals... Finally, you gave a text to define your proposals which is good. I will try to read and ask for what I do not understand. I accept vague description only when the result is a single outcome. "Districts are still managed like before" would be acceptable. However, if I think the outcome is not well defined, I will NOT refuse any proposal. I will simply recommend to members of my group to make their own mind about it... Mr. Davison, Please give me back your proposals for 2). Please register to the Electoral_systems_designers. If or when this discussion would "pollute" too much the EM list, let the owner (I think it is Mr. Lanpher) or any moderator tell me. Necessity is the mother of invention, St�phane Rouillon.
