Raph Frank wrote:
Z(10) abstained/voted for self
A(5) voted for Z
B(3) voted for Z
C(1) voted for Z
Y(5) abstained/voted for self
D(1) voted for Y
E(3) voted for Y
If there were 3 seats to assign, then would go
Z gets 2 as holds 10 votes (2/3 of votes)
Y gets 1 as holds 5 votes (1/3
Juho wrote:
There is a difference between methods where only voters can modify their
votes at any time and methods where the candidate that got some votes can
redirect these votes. The latter case may cause larger and faster changes.
And such changes may lead to reactions also among those
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 7:23 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The decoy list strategy appears because it's possible to vote for a
different national party and regional party (constituency candidate), which
leads to an overhang that can be exploited to turn top-up into
On Aug 21, 2008, at 2:14 , Raph Frank wrote:
In Ireland, they are pretty open. However, they have been
complaints that
they are annoying.
It is something like you have to be nominated by 20 registered
voters, but
your nominees have to actually be physically present when you
register.
On Aug 21, 2008, at 2:18 , Raph Frank wrote:
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 10:15 PM, Juho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 18, 2008, at 12:00 , James Gilmour wrote:
I have to say I just do not understand the obsession with lists.
Lists are indeed rather clumsy and maybe simplifying (trees would
On Aug 21, 2008, at 2:23 , Raph Frank wrote:
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 10:17 PM, Juho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also an STV election that has tens of candidates but allows also
shorter
votes may have problems.
The favourite party of the voter could have 20 candidates. Let's
say that
they are
On Aug 21, 2008, at 2:50 , Raph Frank wrote:
In Ireland, the PR-STV system can lead to hostility between local
members
of a party as often the only way to get elected is to win a seat at
the expense
of another party member.
I guess practically all methods with multiple candidates have
On Aug 21, 2008, at 2:27 , Raph Frank wrote:
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 10:18 PM, Juho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the last parliamentary elections I had 179 candidates to choose
from.
This district elected 18 of the 200 representatives. The
population of the
district is maybe somewhat
4. Re: Why We Shouldn't Count Votes with Machines (Dave Ketchum)
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 11:14:34 +0200 Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
I DO NOT like printout-based machines. To start some thinking, how about:
All machines have identical valid code,
Some have video
Ok, in a stable system with well established connections between
nodes that stability will increase. I was concerned about the
ability of individuals to move large masses of votes (larger than
what they got directly in the election) by just their own individual
decision. Maybe the misuse
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:41 PM, James Gilmour
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Surely, this is not a matter of opinion? Surely, the result obtained was
more representative of the expressed wishes of the voters
than if SF had won more seats than the Greens? Irrespective of the policies
of the
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 11:30 PM, Juho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, this is where I see that STV and trees (or lists) can be combined in a
fruitful way. If the number of candidates is large then short votes may lead
to problems in STV. To guarantee proper inheritance of the votes it would be
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 11:33 PM, Juho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The system works quite fine. It is a basic party based open list election
using d'Hondt within each district separately.
So, the ballot has 179 names and you pick one ?
Election-Methods mailing list - see
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 11:33 PM, Juho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I guess practically all methods with multiple candidates have some of this
flavour. Maybe the tendency to work together within a party (=smile more
than the competing candidate) and be more hostile towards the candidates of
other
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 11:33 PM, Juho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe one could force the voting
power of different candidates within some agreed range. That could be done
by cutting only the power of the strongest representatives and forwarding
their excess votes to the nearest group (or as
On Aug 21, 2008, at 2:22 PM, Raph Frank wrote:
This isn't possible though. Fundamentally, FPTP
means that a candidate can get 1 full seat while only
being supported by 1/2 a seat's worth of voters (and often
less).
Of course, that's true for any single-seat district, FPTP or not.
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:37:32 -0600 Kathy Dopp wrote:
4. Re: Why We Shouldn't Count Votes with Machines (Dave Ketchum)
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 11:14:34 +0200 Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
I DO NOT like printout-based machines. To start some thinking, how about:
All
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:00 PM, Dave Ketchum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First, this is not intended to be used in a zillion precincts - just to
validate the programs.
OK. Well if you don't care about validating the election outcome
accuracy, and just want to verify the small amount of
On Aug 22, 2008, at 2:38 , Raph Frank wrote:
Yeah, the are pretty polite in publilc, but you sometimes hear about
complaints about the nomination system.
In Finland where the number of candidates is relatively high some
less obvious candidates may have some trouble getting in to the lists
On Aug 22, 2008, at 2:18 , Raph Frank wrote:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 11:30 PM, Juho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, this is where I see that STV and trees (or lists) can be
combined in a
fruitful way. If the number of candidates is large then short
votes may lead
to problems in STV. To
20 matches
Mail list logo
