2013/2/9 Richard Fobes <[email protected]>: >> 2013/2/6 Richard Fobes<[email protected]>: > >>> How many candidates would/could compete for the five (open) >>> party-list positions? > On 2/6/2013 3:12 PM, Peter Zbornik wrote: >> Say twenty, for instance. > > To: Peter Zbornik > > After considerable thinking about your request, I've come up with a > recommended election method for your situation. > > The method has these advantages: > > * Uses open-source software that is already available. > > * Does not require any modification of the software. > > * Provides proportional results for the five seats. > > * Provides quota-based representation for women -- which, as I understand > it, you specified as requiring a woman in one of the top two positions, and > another woman in the next three positions. > > * Is very resistant to strategic voting. > > * Produces better representation compared to using STV (single transferable > vote). > > The method consists of running VoteFair _representation_ ranking > calculations. Five levels of representation would be requested. As a part > of that calculation, VoteFair _popularity_ ranking results are also > calculated for all twenty or thirty candidates. > > The open-source VoteFair ranking software, which runs under either Microsoft > Windows or Linux, is here: > > http://github.com/cpsolver/VoteFair-ranking > > For convenience it can be used in conjunction with the Vote-Info-Split-Join > (VISJ) framework here: > > htts://github.com/cpsolver/Vote-Info-Split-Join-VISJ > > The adjustments to ensure quota-based representation for women is done > manually, after the calculations have been done. > > Here/below is a description of the election method. > > Tentatively the five open-list party positions are assigned to the five > candidates who are ranked as most representative -- according to VoteFair > _representation_ ranking. > > These results are proportional. And they are very resistant to strategic > voting. The details are explained at this web page: > > http://www.votefair.org/calculation_details_representation.html >
Does VoteFair representation ranking fulfil the criterion, that candidate for seat number 2 is elected proportionally to the elected candidate at seat 1, and candidate for seat number 3 is elected proportionally to the elected candidates at seats 1 and 2, etc. as in the top-down method of Otten? > If the tentative results already happen to meet the quota for women, then no > adjustments are needed. > > If there are no women in any of the tentatively assigned five positions, > then the two women who are the most popular according to VoteFair > _popularity_ ranking are moved into positions # 2 and # 4, and the men are > shifted down. > > When the men who tentatively won are shifted down (to make room for the two > women), their order is preserved (which in the above case means the men in > seats # 4 and # 5 are completely removed, and the man who was in position # > 3 is moved to position # 5, and the man who was in position # 2 is moved > into position # 3). This does not necesarily lead to proportionality within the five candidates. > > If one or two women won seats in the top five positions, but a woman did not > reach position # 1 or position # 2, then the more-representative woman is > shifted into position # 2 and, if necessary, the man in position # 5 is > completely removed. > > In other words, if any woman needs to be promoted, she first comes from the > tentatively assigned most-representative positions. Otherwise she comes > from the highest woman-occupied position in the popularity ranking. > > As an example, if the representation ranking looks like this (where M=male > and F=female) ... > > 1: Jiri (M) > 2: Petr (M) > 3: Karel (M) > 4: Vaclav (M) > 5: Eva (F) > > ... and within the popularity ranking the most popular woman who is not > listed above is ... > > Tereza (F) > > ... then these are the final results for the party list: > > 1: Jiri (M) > 2: Eva (F) > 3: Petr (M) > 4: Tereza (F) > 5: Karel (M) > > Why is the second woman moved into position # 4 instead of position # 5? > Because presumably half of the Green-party voters are women, and presumably > you want proportional results if your party should win 4 seats. (If the > quotas are met without needing any adjustments, then the second woman might > end up in position # 5, and this would be fair because the results imply > that quotas are no longer necessary to override other political priorities.) Both presumptions are wrong. > > (As a minor point, if in the future the gender-based quota is no longer > needed because women typically end up in the top five positions, then the > method for filling position # 5 can be improved by using a method from > VoteFair _negotiation_ ranking. In the meantime the tentatively assigned > winner of position # 5 usually will be demoted, so this future refinement > would not affect the results under current circumstances.) > > Of course you, and your fellow Green-party members, will have questions > about this method. I'll be happy to answer them. Just ask. > > Richard Fobes > ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
