James Gilmour wrote:
Kathy Dopp Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 4:45 PM
A fair proportional multiseat STV representation system could be made
by eliminating STV's elimination rounds but using the rank choices to
transfer partial votes to a 2nd choice candidate in cases where more
voters than
Rather than reply individually to the three response to my former
post, I'll just make some observations:
1. It seems like the pro-IRV/STV group has begun to dominate this list,
2. the assumption that Later-no-harm is a desirable feature of a
voting method is very odd. I would claim that the
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Kathy Dopp kathy.d...@gmail.com wrote:
Rather than reply individually to the three response to my former
post, I'll just make some observations:
1. It seems like the pro-IRV/STV group has begun to dominate this list,
I am pro-PR-STV but against IRV.
As with
Ralph,
I believe that you misunderstood what I was saying below. It is the
relative *number* of candidates who run for office relative to the
number of the voters they represent compared to the same ratio for all
other candidates that determines whether or not STV achieves
proportional
On Oct 31, 2009, at 10:29 AM, Kathy Dopp wrote:
5. It always amazes me how irrationally the supporters of IRV/STV
support a nonmonotonic system that creates more problems than it
solves when there are clearly better alternatives available that
actually solve more problems than they create.
I agree with Raph Frank in that most EM activists probably have
different opinions on IRV (for single winner elections) and STV (for
multi-winner elections). Technically many of their properties are
still the same but the final impact and nature of these elections
(single winner vs. PR
On Oct 31, 2009, at 10:25 AM, Juho wrote:
(PR makes sense in general but I wouldn't deny people the right to
achieve the political balance using two-party systems if they so
want.)
How would this decision be made? Majority rule?
Election-Methods mailing list - see
Yes, majority rule is the default mechanism (sometimes complemented
with super-majority requirements in key decisions like this).
Are there alternatives to this? In principle also ratings could be
used somewhere to make the decision (if they would just work in
practice), and other methods
Hello,
--- En date de : Sam 31.10.09, Jonathan Lundell jlund...@pobox.com a écrit :
De: Jonathan Lundell jlund...@pobox.com
Objet: Re: [EM] STV - the transferrable part is OK (fair), the sequential
round elimination is not
À: Juho juho4...@yahoo.co.uk
Cc: kathy.d...@gmail.com, Election
On Oct 31, 2009, at 11:08 AM, Kevin Venzke wrote:
(PR makes sense in general but I wouldn't deny people
the right to achieve the political balance using two-party
systems if they so want.)
How would this decision be made? Majority rule?
It's not hard to imagine a referendum with that kind
(PR makes sense in general but I wouldn't deny people
the right to achieve the political balance using two-party systems if
they so want.)
How would this decision be made? Majority rule?
It's not hard to imagine a referendum with that kind of effect. I
don't see how you can get
The basic idea of PR methods is to create an assembly that represents
the voters. While voters don't neatly fall into categories, we can
measure the performance of the systems as if they did. In the end,
the only category that matters is who the voter trusts most to represent them.
So if
12 matches
Mail list logo
