I agree that the Droop quota or some similar quota should try to be
satisfied. STV doesn't always satisfy it due to exhausted ballots.
Vote-splitting does mean less proportional representation using STV if
more candidates run relative to some groups' constituency share
compared to other groups.
On Nov 1, 2009, at 10:49 PM, Juho wrote:
Firstly, STV-PR can be used in all public elections, including
those that are non-partisan.
Yes. Non-partisan multi-winner elections are however rare in
politics. They may be more common e.g. when electing only a small
number of representatives
On Nov 1, 2009, at 10:51 PM, Juho wrote:
I wouldn't be as strict as saying that Droop proportionality is an
absolute requirement. I'd be happy to classify all methods that
approximate the principle of x% of votes means x% of seats as
acceptable PR.
I'd like to see a definition of what
Kathy Dopp Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 1:20 PM
Vote-splitting does mean less proportional
representation using STV if more candidates run relative to
some groups' constituency share compared to other groups.
Must be some misunderstanding here. Because the surplus votes of elected
At 06:20 AM 11/2/2009, Michael Allan wrote:
If I understand you Abd, we're currently developing the tools for
voters to do essentially what you describe. And we've made some
progress recently:
Drafting media: http://t.zelea.com/wiki/Toronto:Pollwiki
Voting engine:
On Nov 1, 2009, at 8:28 PM, Raph Frank wrote:
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
which says:
One of the hardest parts about PR-STV is actually explaining
robert bristow-johnson Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 5:44 PM
whose *ballot* gets their vote transferred? it shouldn't matter in
which order the counting is. if my ballot is needed to give the
candidate what he needs, and your ballot isn't needed, then you got
to influence the
On Nov 2, 2009, at 9:54 AM, James Gilmour wrote:
robert bristow-johnson Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 5:44 PM
whose *ballot* gets their vote transferred? it shouldn't matter in
which order the counting is. if my ballot is needed to give the
candidate what he needs, and your ballot isn't
Kathy Dopp wrote:
Condorcet is only a single seat method.
Yes but it can be expanded to be proportional mutli-seat and to be
winner-take-all multi-seat. I was really talking about the IRV
properties of STV, since STV is essentially IRV with surplus vote
transfer added on top.
There are
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 4:25 AM, robert bristow-johnson
r...@audioimagination.com wrote:
whose *ballot* gets their vote transferred? it shouldn't matter in which
order the counting is. if my ballot is needed to give the candidate what
he
needs, and your ballot isn't needed, then you got to
On Nov 2, 2009, at 4:50 PM, Jonathan Lundell wrote:
On Nov 1, 2009, at 10:51 PM, Juho wrote:
I wouldn't be as strict as saying that Droop proportionality is an
absolute requirement. I'd be happy to classify all methods that
approximate the principle of x% of votes means x% of seats as
Ok, these examples are sort of second level behind the hottest
political arena. It makes sense not to involve party politics e.g. in
decision making in the schools. Are there maybe counties/cities where
the primary decision making body would have remained non-partisan?
Juho
On Nov 2,
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 8:38 PM, Juho juho4...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
On Nov 2, 2009, at 1:53 PM, Raph Frank wrote:
Districts with 7+ seats seem reasonable, and give reasonable
proportionality.
I guess there is some practical limit to how may candidates the voters are
willing to evaluate and
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 8:56 PM, Juho juho4...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
On Nov 2, 2009, at 4:50 PM, Jonathan Lundell wrote:
To harp on California again: we have 53 Congressional districts, all (of
course) single-seat FPTP. The distribution of Democratic and Republican
seats is surprisingly close to
Raph Frank Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 9:41 PM
To harp on California again: we have 53 Congressional districts, all (of
course) single-seat FPTP. The distribution of Democratic and Republican
seats is surprisingly close to representing state party registration.
Yes, FPTP in
On Nov 2, 2009, at 11:30 PM, Raph Frank wrote:
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 8:38 PM, Juho juho4...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
On Nov 2, 2009, at 1:53 PM, Raph Frank wrote:
Districts with 7+ seats seem reasonable, and give reasonable
proportionality.
I guess there is some practical limit to how may
On Nov 2, 2009, at 11:40 PM, Raph Frank wrote:
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 8:56 PM, Juho juho4...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
On Nov 2, 2009, at 4:50 PM, Jonathan Lundell wrote:
To harp on California again: we have 53 Congressional districts,
all (of
course) single-seat FPTP. The distribution of
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 11:58 PM, Juho juho4...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Droop guarantees the first seat already with somewhat less than votes/seats
number of votes but d'Hondt does not = ??
Sorry meant a 4 seater.
In a four seater, a party with 20%+ of the vote is guaranteed a seat
no matter how the
Juho wrote:
On Nov 2, 2009, at 4:50 PM, Jonathan Lundell wrote:
Is this acceptable PR? I hope your answer is of course not (if it
isn't, we can have that discussion).
I note that a two-party system can be seen as one style of democracy
that may be chosen intentionally. But if the target is
Raph Frank wrote:
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 8:56 PM, Juho juho4...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
I agree that DPC is a nice criterion. In practice I'm not that strict since
I believe also methods that are close to DPC work quite well. For example
basic d'Hondt with party lists may be close enough to PR
20 matches
Mail list logo
