Forest Simmons said: > Each voter marks one candidate on the ballot. These candidates become > proxies (for the voters that marked their names) in an Election > Completion Convention. > > If there are n seats to be filled, and there is a subset of n candidates > each of which receives more than 1/(n+1) of the vote, then automatically > they distribute all of their proxy votes to self, and they win the > seats. > > Otherwise, since each proxy knows how many votes are controlled by every > other proxy, the candidates with common interests can get together and > decide on how to distribute their votes for best effect, i.e. so that > not too many votes, if any , get wasted.
Am I correct in assuming that the candidates would essentially use something akin to cumulative voting? This seems to be similar to closed party list systems, except that with a closed list the vote sharing among like-minded candidates has been decided in advance. If the list gets enough votes for one seat the winner will be A. If they get enough for 2 seats then B will also win, etc. With your proposed system, there is more uncertainty. I don't see any advantages favoring proxy PR over closed party list. However, I do see a few advantages favoring proxy approval over regular approval (although I admit to preferring regular approval). Alex ---- For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em
