On 6/11/06, warren_d_smith31 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Promoters of the many different voting systems need to stand back from all > > the > competing technicalities for one moment > > and ask the question: "What is the purpose of this election?" In the case > > of Denver it > appears to be to elect a 'city > > council' (a body of 13 members) that is supposed to be representative of > > the > community it is elected to serve. > > Analysis of election results worldwide shows time and again that the only > > way to elect > such a body that is properly > > representative is to use a voting system that gives proportional > > representation. All > voting systems based on > > single-member districts will give PR only by chance. > > --yes, I would like Jan to make it clearer what is the purpose of this > election, please. Is it a multiwinner election?
Right now it's 13 single-winner elections. Rob Richie and others like PR. Seems like a good way to go. The EM people and CVD and the Greens et. al. might all pull in the same direction! Cooperation. What a concept! :-) - Jan > Gilmour seems to think it is a 13-winner election. > Or is it 13 single-winner elections (i.e. from 13 districts)? > [I presume it is not, say 6.5 two-winner elections or > anything like that since 13 is a prime number.] > This is an important difference. > > Frankly I suspect that a 13-winner election with 50 candidates is > not feasible for the voters to handle mentally. So it is probably > closer to 13 single-winner elections? > > If it is really a 13-winner election then you probably do want a PR voting > method such as STV-PR (Gilmour's suggestion), RRV (reweighted range voting), > or Asset voting. Unfortunately, it is unclear if Denver has voting machines > capable > of handling STV (another important fact we need to know before making > a recommendation) and quite possibly they cannot handle RRV or Asset either. > STV is complicated. RRV is less complicated but still complicated. > Asset is simple. By the way, IRV or STV can be run in a NOT-proportional > but simpler manner (i.e. without reweighting) which they might do due to not > understanding these methods, and then you will just create a problem rather > than solve > one. > > If it is 13 single-winner elections, then it might be better to have 6.5 > two-winner elections or 4.33 three-winner elections or > something to get more proportionality, but any such > suggestion will involve redistricting and will automatically engender a huge > battle. > Also, if the two-winner idea is adopted, but not a PR voting system, > the result will be LESS proportionality. > > If staying with 13 single-winner elections, then I recommend range voting > as the best single-winner method and it works on voting machines right now, > unlike IRV. > > Warren D Smith ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
