Dear all, just a post scriptum to the email below to make things clear: I wonder if there is a short and to the point argument for dummies, why proportional elections (say elections meeting the droop quota) leave the voters happier than winner-takes it all elections. This "for dummies" explanation of the advantages of proportional voting could be combined with a longer technical explanation, perhaps using social welfare functions. for people with time and interest to understand the argument in full.
I don't mean that the argument above would be the best argument, but it could be a really interesting one. Best regards Peter Zborník On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 4:58 PM, Peter Zbornik <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Kristoffer, dear readers, > > Kristofer, you wrote below: "A minor opinion within the party might need > time to grow, and might in the end turn out to be significant, but using a > winner-takes-it-all method quashes such minority opinions before they get > the chance." > > Thanks, yes I have used this line of argument a lot (we actually have a > global charter of the greens, according to which the greens are obliged > to put the same principles into practice in thei organizations as they work > for in society). > The problem is, that this argument does not "stick", it is simply not sexy. > > Would it be possible to measure the "utility" or "happiness" among the > voters in the party compared to different election methods. I saw you > Kristofer did some work on this but I didn't understand it, I guess I lack > the preliminaries. > > I guess the notion of "Bayesian regret" or something similar could be used > to argue that proportional elections are better than block-voting, but I > have no idea of how to explain this, as I don't know the subject at all > (pareto optimal social allocations, or whatever). > > It seems intuitive that economic tools could be used (I know almost no > economics), since ranked ballot elections simply are explicitly stated > preference orderings. > > I guess that voting and elections, could be indeed one of the best > imaginable real-world examples, where preference orderings of the > actors actually are known, and thus all of the machinery of economic > equilibria and social welfare functions could be applied (like the > Bernoulli-Nash social welfare function). > > I am personally interested in the possiblity of measuring utility, is there > some (preferably short) literature on social welfare, utility and voting > theory for proportional elections (I know some undergrad maths and > statistics)? > > Best regards > Peter > > On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Peter Zbornik wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> thank you for your help with the election system for the council >>> elections of the green party. >>> I will try to move on with technical testing of Schulze's methods and the >>> specification of the elections to the party lists as soon as time allows. >>> Thanks all for the support and all methods supplied. >>> I never could imagine that I would get such a response. >>> When advocating proportional elections in the party, I have found it >>> difficult to explain to other members of the green party why proportional >>> elections to our party organs is a good thing. >>> >> >> As far as I remember, your party, the Czech Green Party, is a minor party. >> Therefore, it might be possible to draw an analogy to the proportional >> methods used by the Czech Republic itself. Without proportional >> representation, the Green Party would have next to no chance of ever getting >> into parliament. However, since your nation does use proportional >> representation, there is some chance. >> >> The same argument could be used within the party. Since the Green Party is >> a minor party, I reason that the party membership honestly believes the >> presence of that party is a good thing. Thus, they would also know (to some >> extent, at least), that minor groups of opinion - like their own party in >> comparison to the major parties - can be good and can add valuable ideas to >> governance. Then could not the same argument be used for the party itself? A >> minor opinion within the party might need time to grow, and might in the end >> turn out to be significant, but using a winner-takes-it-all method quashes >> such minority opinions before they get the chance. >> > >
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
