> Approval and range wouldn't work any better than our existing system, as > they aren't proportional (i.e. one slate can sweep seats easily). It does > seem like STV is best - however, it does seem harder to explain than the > existing system. How would MMP be done, anyway - especially with uneven > constituencies?
my assumption when proposing mmp was that you had one rep per faculty. there is something called stv-mmp http://video.google.ca/videosearch?q=stv-mmp but I think it adds un-needed complications. but given all the information so far, I think I would agree with you STV is probably the way to go. but as a second choice that is easier to explain and count. Consider "Regional Open List". This is Proportional, Easier for the voter to understand, Easier to count! > Tim > On 4/16/07, Howard Swerdfeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Tim Hull wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > I e-mailed this list a while back about election methods in student >> > government. I'm at the University of Michigan, and we use a variant of >> the >> > Borda count for our elections where you get as many votes as open >> seats. >> > Slates of candidates typically contest elections as "parties", and most >> > discussion of elections revolves around these parties. >> > >> > Anyway, the system as-is works better than at-large plurality, but it >> still >> > leaves much to be desired. The biggest problem with the current system >> is >> > that the largest party slate always wins a disproportionately high >> > number of >> > seats - so large, in fact, that competition has generally withered >> away. >> > >> > As a result, I'm looking at proportional representation systems - and >> > possibly introducing one as a ballot initiative for next year. However, >> I >> > have experienced great trouble in finding a system that people like. >> > Single >> > Transferable Vote seems ideal, but it has the drawback of being complex >> > (and, as a result, hard for people to comprehend). Party lists are >> > simpler, >> > but they force voters to support an entire party - not ideal at all. >> >> I would say that from my perspective at least STV is much easer for the >> voter to understand (what has to be done on the ballot) then Borda >> count, Although Borda is usually easer to count, once all the voting is >> done. >> >> you don't actually mention in this email what is being elected. but >> assuming is is some type of council with all members having the same >> rank and 3-5 seats are coming up for grabs at a time. >> >> I would recommend STV, approval or range, I really dislike party list >> systems. But they are at least more palatable when done in a best looser >> method. >> >> >> If you recommend range make sure it is simple. >> ie 1-5 range with instructions to circle the best answer. >> you should also allow the voter to Leave a candidate blank. >> >> >> However, if your elections include positions like >> Science Rep, Arts Rep, Engineering Rep, etc... >> I would suggest a version of MMP with a best looser method of top up. >> >> good luck >> >> >> > >> > Does anyone have any suggestions? I was actually recently elected to a >> > representative seat as the only independent candidate to defeat the >> > dominant >> > party slate, and am planning to introduce something. I just need to be >> > able >> > to convince others... >> > >> > Tim Hull >> > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> > >> > ---- >> > election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list >> info >> ---- >> election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list >> info >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ---- > election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
