Re: [EM] Competitive Districting Rule. "above-the-line" voting

[Chris Benham]

Anthony Duff wrote: --- James Gilmour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ....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 haven’t known where to look. CB: The system used in the state of South Australia is essentially the same as that for the Australian Senate. High profile independent candidates tend to have "running mates" to pad out a list of candidates and look less forlorn on the ballot paper in comparison with the party "groups". Last election, a sitting independent candidate (Nick Xenophon) did much better than expected with the result that his flow-on mostly above-the-line preferences elected his running mate (Ann Bressington) a complete unknown with some  hobby horses that  Xenophon  wasn't known for.  If there was no above-the-line voting and truncation allowed, I am sure she wouldn't have been elected. http://www.seo.sa.gov.au/ Of course with lots of candidates, compulsory voting, and having to carefully number all the candidates below the line (at least in South Australia and for the Senate) versus a single mark on the ballot paper for above the line, then it is not at all surprising that most voters take the much easier option. And with the political parties generally happy and most of the voters apathetic about the "details", then of course  (at least to most) the system will "seem" to work well. 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. CB: The philosophical position that all candidates should have the same chance of being elected, i.e. it should the same amount of trouble for a voter to vote for candidate x as it is to vote for candidate y, is IMO very strong (bordering on unassailable). Living in Australia all my life, my impression is more in line with James's. Independent candidates and micro-parties seem overrepresented in the ballot count. CB: By what standard?  Based on what? Chris Benham

----
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info