Raph Frank wrote:
On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Juho Laatu juho4...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
It practice that seems to set the limits
to max 4 and min 2 parties/groupings per
constituency represented in the Dail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Members_of_the_30th_D%C3%A1il\
The small constituency
Dan Bishop wrote:
You could use Plurality (with vote-splitting between equally ranked
candidates) to determine surpluses and a different method to determine
eliminations. For example,
[snip]
So the winning set is {Andre, Escher, Gore}. Coincidentally, the same
as the CPO-STV result.
Raph Frank Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2009 1:51 AM
I think a candidate list system is better though as it allows
more general inheritance ordering. Ofc, it is always going
to be a tradeoff between precision and complexity (both for
the count and for the voter).
Closed party list
Open
2009/5/3 James Gilmour jgilm...@globalnet.co.uk:
So the questions that must be answered first are not about the degree of
proportionality or the complexity of the ballot, or
even the size of the districts, but about what the voting system is
intended to achieve in terms of representation.
On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm
km-el...@broadpark.no wrote:
I think Schulze's MMP idea would work well here. Use STV (or some other
neutral method) for district seats, then top up by nationwide MMP. His
concept includes ways of fixing the decoy list problem (basically,
I don't think that IRV/STV is even worth wasting time discussing
unless you fully support the following:
1. treating voters' ballots inequitably by counting 2nd and 3rd
choices of only some voters, counting the 2nd and 3rd choices of even
fewer cvoters in a timely fashion when those candidates
