On 05 Dec 2011 12:46:41 -0800, Ted Stern wrote: > > The simplest PR system: open list Approval Transferable Vote. > > ATF for multiwinner elections:
Correction, ATV. Blame it on Monday ... -- Ted > > Quota ("easy"): Q = (Nballots + 1)/(Nseats + 1) > > A voter may approve any number of candidates. > > Each ballot is initially weighted as 1.0. > > Count weighted approval totals. At same time, count weighted > approvals coming from truncated ballots (only one standing candidate > remaining on the ballot). > > In each round, seat the candidate with the highest weighted approval > total (T). The truncated approval total for that candidate is denoted > by L. > > The amount of vote used up on each ballot that votes for that > candidate is > > U = max(Q - L, 0.0) / max(max(T,Q) - L, eps), > where eps is a small number > 0, say 1.e-9. > > This is just (Q - L) / (T - L), restricted to lie between 0.0 and 1.0. > > Since truncated ballots will lose their vote completely (and thus the > U factor is irrelevant for those ballots), the truncation factor > adjustment lets untruncated ballots transfer more of their strength. > > The rescale factor on each ballot voting for the last seated candidate > is thus > > F = 1.0 - U > > Advantages: > > ATF is monotonic and Droop-proportional. > > Approval ballot is the simplest format. > > With multiple winners, Approval strategy for the approval cutoff is > less important. Voters can simply approve of all candidates that they > feel best represent their positions. > > Each round is summable (though the overall election is not), and there > are only Nseats rounds, unlike STV. > > The Truncation sum, L, reduces the vote loss that is usually > associated with STV. In fact, the truncation transfer factor > adjustment could be applied to any quota-based PR method that is > subject to truncated ballot vote loss. > > ATF may not be the most ideal PR , but it would be the simplest to > implement quickly. > > Ted > > On 03 Dec 2011 14:31:16 -0800, Jameson Quinn wrote: >> >> I left out one of the most important advantages of PAL voting: that it's dead >> simple for voters. Though you can vote a more-expressive ballot if you want >> to, >> a simple bullet vote is enough to give good, proportional but not >> party-centric, results. >> >> Jameson >> >> 2011/12/3 Jameson Quinn <jameson.qu...@gmail.com> >> >> Does "American PR" have a specific meaning yet? I'm sure I'll be in favor >> of it, whatever PR variant it is; but while I'm still ignorant, let me >> guess a little. >> >> I doubt it's a mixed-member system. They're good, but the US, despite (or >> perhaps because of) being one of the most partisan countries around, has >> too much suspicion of "party machines" for that to catch on. >> >> So that leaves ... I guess the most-probable options are global STV or >> STV >> in small multimember districts (3-5 members). >> >> Again, these are both quite good systems I'd support. But if it's not too >> late to offer a suggestion... I'd strongly encourage you to consider >> something like PAL representation. It's certainly not the simplest system >> there is, but then no PR system is really simple. And as advantages you >> get: >> -- High potential for 100% continuity (if the statewide gerrymander was >> fairly proportional, and if third parties don't pick up any seats). This >> is >> a HUGE advantage when selling to incumbents. I mean, seriously, >> tremendous. >> -- Voters and/or peers have the real power to remove even the most >> well-encrusted incumbent if they sour on him or her. That is, it's >> voter-centric, not party-centric >> -- Almost every voter gets their own local representative WHOM THEY VOTED >> FOR. This is absolutely something that would resonate with US voters, >> raised on tales of "No taxation without representation".?? >> >> Check it out. >> >> (And yes, I think that we can work together over PR, even if we don't see >> eye-to-eye on single winner systems.) >> >> Jameson >> 2011/12/3 David L Wetzell <wetze...@gmail.com> >> >> American PR is a coming. ??You must decide if you want to keep >> quibbling over the best single-winner election rule or push hard for >> a >> better mix of multi and single-winner election rules in the US. >> >> dlw >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Rob Richie <r...@fairvote.org> >> Date: Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 11:05 AM >> Subject: Re: how goes American PR? >> To: David L Wetzell <wetze...@gmail.com> >> >> A little slow in getting our American PR-like plans drawn, but we'll >> have them done for hte whole country in early 2012 and heat up in our >> outreach... getting some related opeds. >> >> Next year should be a good one for the idea -- ??lots of chances to >> talk about it. >> Rob >> >> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 12:26 PM, David L Wetzell >> <wetze...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> I wonder if tea-partiers unhappy w. the Republican party might >> get >> in on it? >> >> dlw >> >> -- >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> "Respect for Every Vote and Every Voice" >> >> Rob Richie >> Executive Director >> >> FairVote???? >> 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 610 >> Takoma Park, MD 20912 >> www.fairvote.org?? r...@fairvote.org >> (301) 270-4616 >> >> Please support FairVote through action and tax-deductible donations >> -- >> see http://fairvote.org/donate. For federal employees, please >> consider? >> ? a gift to us through the Combined Federal Campaign (FairVote's?? >> CFC >> number is 10132.) Thank you! >> >> ---- >> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list >> info >> >> >> ---- >> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info -- araucaria dot araucana at gmail dot com ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info