> > > But if your independent that you vote for locally doesn't win a district > seat, s/he might still win an at-large seat in the national list PR > allocation, because, as I said, there's no reason why an independent > shouldn't be able to run as a 1-candidate "party". So, if you really want > to elect hir, then vote for hir in your district STV election, and also in > the national PR allocation election. We're assuming that s/he's a candidate > in your district, which is why you can vote for hir in your district STV > election. > > > Here you refer to a separate "national PR allocation election". Is your > plan maybe that the voter casts one ranked vote in the district STV > election and one party vote in the national party election? > > [endquote]
Yes. It would just be the usual topping-up enhancement, but for STV in the districts. > > You wrote: > > Note that this kind of methods may easily allow such free riding where > parties list some of their strong candidates (that will be certainly > elected) as independent candidates in the districts. This makes the total > number of seats of that party appear smaller that it in reality is. And > that may lead to more top-up seats to this party. > > [endquote] Nothing wrong with that. Every party supporter who votes for the "independent" is one who doesn't vote for the party nationwide. So the party's national count will be less. But what if the "independent" is someone who is popular with people other than the party's supporters too? Fine. Again, nothing wrong with that. It's fair and right that s/he gets that other support. The party isn't being unfairly helped. Hir extra nonparty support counts for hir as an independent, and not for that party, because s/he appeals to people other than party supporters. Mike Ossipoff > > > > > > Juho > > > > > > ---- > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info > >
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
