--- James Gilmour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Note that subdivision of parties and their alliances and
> > whatever other groupings add tools to the voter to express
> > what she wants. Also models where STV like ordering is not
> > used but the vote to James automatically goes to the smallest
> > group that James belongs to, then to the next bigger group
> > etc. may work better than current more rough "vote party
> > only" or "vote party member only" arrangements.
>
> This all sounds very like the "above-the-line" voting that is used in the
> Australian Federal Senate elections. It has
> perverted STV-PR very severely, so that that implementation is really nothing
> more than closed list party PR.
It does sound like the "above-the-line" voting that is used in the Australian
Federal Senate elections and the NSW upper house elections, and other
Australian
elections, where it certainly *seems* to work well, and it is utilised by the
vast
majority.
I know that James Gilmour is philosophically opposed to this party list option
operating within STV. He may be right, but I have seen no evidence. Perhaps I
havent known where to look.
Is the statement It has perverted STV-PR very severely based on philosophy,
impression or evidence? It is my impression that there is no perversion.
Independent candidates and micro-parties seem overrepresented in the ballot
count.
The absence of independent candidates and micro-parties in the results is not
the
reality either, but even if it was, I would argue that it is more a result of
the
small number of seats (six per STV district), than a result of systematic bias
towards parties.
How would someone measure the perversion?
Anthony
____________________________________________________
On Yahoo!7
Messenger - Make free PC-to-PC calls to your friends overseas.
http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
----
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
