On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 3:01 PM, <election-methods-requ...@lists.electorama.com> wrote: > Send Election-Methods mailing list submissions to > election-meth...@lists.electorama.com > > From: Kristofer Munsterhjelm <km-el...@broadpark.no> > To: Raph Frank <raph...@gmail.com> > > It sounds more like a straightforward party list, only that the > composition within each bloc is determined by a (majoritarian) vote. > Each ballot has a default vote order, but the voter can alter it by > adding support to a candidate and deleting other candidates. > > The general scheme would then be: party list with some majoritarian > method determining the internal composition. Each party gets as many > seats as the party list method says they're entitled to, then the > majoritarian method allocates candidates within those "blocs".
Now that sounds like a GREAT method if: 1. the voter can vote for one party 2. the voter can rank members within that party (say up to 3 members to keep the ballot doable) 3. the voters' consensus ranking of members within that party is decided using the Condorcet method. I like it. A fair proportional representation system that is precinct-summable, monotonic, and finds Condorcet winners within each party's list. Kathy > > As long as the majoritarian method is summable, the entire thing should > be summable as well. For instance, one could devise a method where the > internal vote is Condorcet, each party ballot having a default ordering > that can be overridden by the voter. > > ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
