Stephane, Ok, I made an attempt to read it. I'm not totally certain how your system works, but I have a comment or two.
First, I don't quite understand the goal of the math. It looks to me like within a district, the game is IRV except that voters may refuse to transfer their vote after a certain point. If I am correct about that, then I have two doubts. First, I think everyone will decline to rank beyond their favorite. Second, I'm not sure how the global results are guaranteed to be proportional. (I've probably misunderstood this, though.) Is it wise to permit independent candidates to run? If they receive too many votes (which is as likely as receiving too few), they will regret that they didn't start their own party to take advantage of more seats. I know in Russia and Brazil a lot of parties are based around individuals. In Turkey, the recently elected winner party had no popularity except for Tayyip Erdogan (Istanbul mayor?). (But actually, Canada would not likely support a lot of parties, anyway. The system is too parliamentary.) I still don't think STV (etc.) can improve PR. To run on the party list, candidates will need to conform to their parties. They will not be able to individually campaign, because nobody will see the need to spend money on such campaigns. They will be elected or not elected solely based on party affiliation. Am I wrong? My philosophy is that the country should be divided into the fewest districts possible (maybe 50), and within those districts we should elect the Condorcet winner if he is not a fluke. Maybe another "lower house" could be larger and more proportional, and represent more interests, but I think such a house should be constitutionally weaker. I'm interested to hear thoughts or clarifications. Stepjak (incidentally my first name is actually "Kevin." Yahoo.fr reverses my names inexplicablement.) --- Stephane Rouillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit�: > Venzke, I invite you to read: > > It is a STV variant defined on a national instead of > regional basis, and > that uses a mix of alternative vote and residual > approbation to produce an > exactly > proportional result instead of vote transfers and > quotas. Some other aspect > ensures that at worst, the governement will be a > two-parties coalition. Read > and feel free to comment. (English version is the > fourth post...) ___________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en fran�ais ! Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com ---- For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em
