Antony --
This lists of links is encouraging. Glad to know there are so
many options. As a way to test the voting methods for reliability,
may I suggest that we set up a trial survey on DNS issues, and
open the "voting" for one day to one week, and see what we get.
The people on the lists can contribute questions for the survey.
I have grad school training in survey design, if this would help
us make sure each question's language stays impartial.
-- ken
Ken Freed
Media Visions Webzine
http://www.media-visions.com
P.S. We were exploring online votiing thast year using D-Vote,
But this never got off the ground because of security concerns.
>Hi,
>
>Since we're talking about membership and voting, let's vote in such a way
>that we're making sure that voices are heard. In the DNSO application we
>put together in Paris, we favored single transferable voting (STV) - but in
>any case some kind of proportional representation is surely indicated.
>
>Here are some good resources about proportional representation, with an
>emphasis on STV. I hope this will help generate some good substantive
>discussion. If we want fairness, let's think about fairness critically -
>what it means, how to achieve it.
>
>Antony
>
>LINKS
>
>http://www.barnsdle.demon.co.uk//vote/minSTV.html - A simple method of
>implementing STV
>
>http://www.barnsdle.demon.co.uk/vote/fracSTV.html - Rules for implementing
>STV (fractional method)
>
>http://member.aol.com/loringrbt/elect.html - Advocates a mix of STV and
>Condorcet rules, but explains each of them very well. Good discussions how
>to use different voting systems to achieve the desired effect (e.g., most
>popular, most stable, least risky, etc.) There's also a freeware version of
>"Political SIM" to test it out...
>
>http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~lee/prsa/pr.html "The Case for PR" (Proportional
>Representation) - Quick summary of STV rules, why it's better.
>
>Australia has been using STV voting since early this century. There is even
>a service that will conduct the voting for you for not much at all, although
>they are based in Australia. See
>http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~lee/prsa/count_help.html. This same group puts out
>some software, with source code. See
>http://www.cs.mu.OZ.AU/~lee/prsa/count/count_form.html
>
>http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/prlib.htm - Proportional
>representation library. Some beginning readings, lots more scholarly
>articles, case studies.
>
>http://www.gn.apc.org/ers - The Electoral Reform Society from the U.K. This
>site is frequently cited, but I can't get the name to resolve. Included
>here in the hopes that the problem is temporary.
>
>Finally, a message from Nigel Roberts of Guernsey (.GG), an IATLD member,
>sent to me about a week ago when I asked him about STV:
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Nigel Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Friday, February 05, 1999 12:13 PM
>To: Antony Van Couvering
>Subject: STV
>
>
>Single Transferable Vote
>Eur.-Ing. Nigel Roberts ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
>
>The following is a description of the Single Transferable Vote system,
>with great thanks to the Electoral Reform Society of Great Britain
>from whom most of the material derives
>
>[The ERS provides practical assistance to many non-profit
>organisations in conducting elections by STV.]
>
>STV
>------
>
>Single Transferable Vote is an electoral system which will:
>
>- Ensure all votes have equal value;
>
>- Give effective representation to all significant points of view
>within the electorate;
>
>- Allow electors to vote for their preferred candidates without fear
>of wasting their votes;
>
>- Ensure the accountability of individual representatives to their
>electorates.
>
>
>How the System Works:
>--------------------------------------
>Each parliamentary constituency would elect between 3 and 5
>representatives depending on its size.
>
>Voters rank the candidates, putting a '1' for their favourite, a '2'
>for the next, and so on.
>
>It's as simple as that!
>
>If the voter's first choice candidate does not need their vote, either
>because he or she is elected without it, or because he or she has too
>few votes to be elected, then the vote is transferred to the voter's
>second choice candidate, and so on.
>
>In this way, most of the votes help to elect a candidate and far fewer
>votes are wasted.
>
>
>Details
>----------
>An important feature of STV in national parliamentary elections (e.g.
>in the Irish Republic) is that voters can choose between candidates
>both of their own and of other parties, and can even select candidates
>for reasons other than party affiliation. Thus, a voter, wishing for
>more women MPs could vote for a woman from their own party and then
>all other women candidates, whatever party they stand for.
>
>The system is used: in the Australian Senate, the Republic of Ireland,
>Tasmania, Malta and Northern Ireland for local elections and for
>elections to the European Parliament (NI will retain STV in 1999)
>
>STV does more than other systems to guarantee that everyone gets their
>views represented and that they have a say in what is done by their
>elected representatives.
>
>STV is the best option for:
>
>a) Putting the power in the hands of people instead of parties
>
>b) Keeping representatives linked to the people who voted for them.
>
>c) Most voters can identify a representative that they personally
>helped to elect and can feel affinity with. Such a personal link
>increases accountability and transparency.
>
>c) Making the body of elected representatives reflect the views of the
>voters.
>
>Only a party or coalition of parties, who could attract more than 50%
>of the electorate could form a government elected under STV.
>
>Any changes would have to be backed by a majority since public opinion
>is reflected fairly in elections under STV. This is far more important
>than that a government should be formed by only one political party or
>viewpoint.
>
>It enables the voters to express opinions effectively.
>
>Voters can choose between candidates within parties, demonstrating
>support for different wings or viewpoints.
>
>Voters can also express preferences between the abilities or other
>attributes, of individual candidates.
>
>** It is simple for voters to use. **
>
>Voters cannot vote negatively. They have to cast a positive vote and
>know that their vote will not be wasted whatever their choice is.
>
>It produces governments that are strong and stable because they are
>founded on the majority support of the electorate. STV, to quote Enid
>Lakeman, (who was the UK's leading advocate of STV)
>
>"takes the voters as its starting point - not the party- and seeks to
>give effect to the wishes of every voter, whatever they may be and
>whether they have anything to do with party or not".
