I don't necessarily think that STV is better than an open party list
system. But I'm a political realist, and I think that STV is the system
that would be easiest to implement in America. With our loose coalition
Democrat and Republican parties, and our large base of independents,
people are
Anthony O'Neal Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2009 7:12 AM
I don't necessarily think that STV is better than an open party list
system.
I think STV-PR is better than open-list party-list PR in three ways.
Firstly, STV-PR can be used in all public elections, including those that are
On Oct 31, 2009, at 7:29 AM, Kathy Dopp wrote:
3. STV does *not* achieve proportional representation at all unless
there is no vote splitting and just the right number of candidates run
who support each group's interests. I.e. the success of methods like
STV to achieve proportional
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Kathy Dopp kathy.d...@gmail.com wrote:
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
I made an attempt to create a basic explanation on an earlier post to this list:
http://www.mail-archive.com/election-methods@lists.electorama.com/msg04195.html
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
On Nov 1, 2009, at 5:59 PM, James Gilmour wrote:
Anthony O'Neal Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2009 7:12 AM
I don't necessarily think that STV is better than an open party list
system.
I think STV-PR is better than open-list party-list PR in three ways.
Firstly, STV-PR can be used in all
