Apologies if you have already seen this message, but it appears to have got the
website but has not been posted out - at least it
never came to me, nor did Kristofer's message that followed it on a completely
different topic.
JG
Graham Bignell Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 4:10 PM
Graham Bignell Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 4:10 PM
This is one of the more amusing editorials about the proposal...
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/05/07/national-post-editorial-board-first-egghead-past-the-post-wi
ns-b-c-s-referendum.aspx
One sign that a
This is one of the more amusing editorials about the proposal...
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/05/07/national-post-editorial-board-first-egghead-past-the-post-wins-b-c-s-referendum.aspx
One sign that a society is running out of real problems is that bored
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Graham Bignell bign...@gmail.com wrote:
... soundly rejected at the polls in 2007
Huh, didn't it get majority support (within a few percent of the
supermajority required)? :)
Many parties would like to be soundly rejected like that.
Election-Methods
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Raph Frank raph...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Graham Bignell bign...@gmail.com wrote:
... soundly rejected at the polls in 2007
Huh, didn't it get majority support (within a few percent of the
supermajority required)? :)
Many parties
On May 7, 2009, at 8:18 AM, Raph Frank wrote:
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Graham Bignell bign...@gmail.com
wrote:
... soundly rejected at the polls in 2007
Huh, didn't it get majority support (within a few percent of the
supermajority required)? :)
Many parties would like to be
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Jonathan Lundell jlund...@pobox.com wrote:
There's a confusion here between BC and Ontario.
Ack, sorry, the editorial also mentions Ontario's MMP choice.
...
Graham
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
--- On Wed, 6/5/09, Raph Frank raph...@gmail.com wrote:
The vote could be e.g. C999C888C111.
Pairs of candidates like C999 and C888
might be rare enough to allow some vote
buyer to mark numerous ballots.
Ofc, a law banning vote buying might be enough in 99% of
cases anyway.
Yes,
Ofc, then you can't use the ballot imaging idea ... or you
need some
way of covering the selections.
Removing hopeless candidates has
problems too. Maybe they themselves want
publicity since they want to grow to
strong candidates. It is possible to set
stricter limits on who can become a
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm
km-el...@broadpark.no wrote:
There's still some information leakage. For instance, if there had been just
one vote-seller, the elided information:
100: A C D B E
1: A C ***
You could require that each row has at least 50 votes.
In order to be a bit more concrete
and to complement my other mails I
draft here one approach to combining
STV like and shorter open list/tree
style ballots. The point is to see
what could be done when the number
of candidates grows large in STV
(and to try to take in what is good
in trees).
Some systems use explicit thresholds
that cut out the smallest parties.
Many systems use districts. Use of
districts also tends to cut out the
smallest parties.
Districts also tend to favour local
groups. A pro district X group with
10% nation wide support might easily
get seats (probably in
--- On Sun, 3/5/09, Raph Frank raph...@gmail.com wrote:
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
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:08 AM, Juho Laatu juho4...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Candidates have a default tree-like
order of inheritance. Vote C121 will
be counted as a vote to candidate
C121, group G12 and party P1. This
vote has the same meaning as vote
C121G12P1ANYONE.
One slight issue here is
--- On Tue, 5/5/09, Raph Frank raph...@gmail.com wrote:
My preference is to use a different method of counting for
election
and elimination.
Election: Vote is shared between all candidates at current
rank
Elimination: Vote is given to each candidate at current
rank at full strength
Why
--- On Tue, 5/5/09, Raph Frank raph...@gmail.com wrote:
Btw, one way that this approach might
somewhat simplify things is that the
votes could be shorter than in STV.
(There might be such shortening needs
also to keep the votes unidentifiable
(to avoid vote buying and coercion).
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:25 PM, Juho Laatu juho4...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
The vote could be e.g. C999C888C111.
Pairs of candidates like C999 and C888
might be rare enough to allow some vote
buyer to mark numerous ballots.
Ofc, a law banning vote buying might be enough in 99% of cases anyway.
Raph Frank wrote:
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:11 PM, Juho Laatu juho4...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Why only fraction of the vote in the
election case? Doesn't a vote to a
party mean that any candidate of the
party may use it at full strength?
Naturally once someone uses it it is
not available to
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 1:24 AM, Dan Bishop danbisho...@gmail.com wrote:
The one thing you haven't mentioned is surpluses. The
symmetric-completion-compatible way of dealing with them is weight the
ballot by the average of the retention fraction for the top-ranked
candidates. For example,
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
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
--- On Thu, 30/4/09, Raph Frank raph...@gmail.com wrote:
In Ireland, the constitution requires at least 3 per
constituency and
over time the average number of seats per constituency is
being
reduced. It is currently illegal (by statutory law)
for
constituencies to have more than 5 seats.
Juho Laatu Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2009 11:33 PM
In Ireland, the constitution requires at least 3 per constituency and
over time the average number of seats per constituency is being
reduced. It is currently illegal (by statutory law) for
constituencies to have more than 5 seats.
It is a rather huge problem. It effects the proportionately
surprisingly little though - all the major parties still win a roughly
fair number of seats. Districting tends to produce much more
proportional results than the seat size would suggest, as random
political differences in geography
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 sizes do hurt the
On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 12:13 AM, Anthony O'Neal watermar...@gmail.com wrote:
It is a rather huge problem. It effects the proportionately surprisingly
little though - all the major parties still win a roughly fair number of
seats. Districting tends to produce much more proportional results
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 3:18 AM, Kathy Dopp kathy.d...@gmail.com wrote:
STV has *all* the same flaws as IRV but is even worse.
I think that it has all the same flaws, but that the damage they do is
mitigated by the fact that it is a multi-seat method. OTOH, it has
large benefits over other PR
election reform
movements in the world today. Go BC-STV!
Terry Bouricius
- Original Message -
From: Kathy Dopp kathy.d...@gmail.com
To: election-methods@lists.electorama.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 5:57 PM
Subject: Re: [EM] British Colombia considering change to STV
1. British
Kathy Dopp wrote:
STV has *all* the same flaws as IRV but is even worse.
It is unimaginable how anyone could support any method for counting
votes that is so fundamentally unfair in its treatment of ballots and
produces such undesirable results.
The reason is very simple: the Droop
On Apr 30, 2009, at 8:38 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Kathy Dopp wrote:
STV has *all* the same flaws as IRV but is even worse.
It is unimaginable how anyone could support any method for counting
votes that is so fundamentally unfair in its treatment of ballots and
produces such
--- On Thu, 30/4/09, Raph Frank raph...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 3:18 AM,
Kathy Dopp kathy.d...@gmail.com
wrote:
STV has *all* the same flaws as IRV but is even
worse.
I think that it has all the same flaws, but that the damage
they do is
mitigated by the fact that it
At 10:18 PM 4/29/2009, Kathy Dopp wrote:
STV has *all* the same flaws as IRV but is even worse. It is
unimaginable how anyone could support any method for counting votes
that is so fundamentally unfair in its treatment of ballots and
produces such undesirable results.
I don't think Ms. Dopp,
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 4:18 PM, Juho Laatu juho4...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Yes. But not necessarily superior in
all aspects.
The first problem in my mind is that
STV sets some practical limits to the
number of candidates.
This is an issue for PR-STV. In fact, it is (IMO) the only major issue.
Jonathan Lundell wrote:
On Apr 30, 2009, at 8:38 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Kathy Dopp wrote:
STV has *all* the same flaws as IRV but is even worse.
It is unimaginable how anyone could support any method for counting
votes that is so fundamentally unfair in its treatment of ballots and
] British Colombia considering change to STV
At 10:18 PM 4/29/2009, Kathy Dopp wrote:
STV has *all* the same flaws as IRV but is even worse. It is
unimaginable how anyone could support any method for counting votes
that is so fundamentally unfair in its treatment of ballots and
produces such undesirable
At 03:48 PM 4/30/2009, Terry Bouricius wrote:
By the way, Abd has an error or typo
where he miss-states the Droop quota as 1/(N-1), but I assume nearly
everybody on this list who read his message already noticed that.
Of course Terry is correct, 1/(N+1). Look, he knows I'm quite less
than
Here in Canada on our left coast BC is holding another referendum on
their election method, in 2005 58% voted for the change, and there is
another vote on May 12 of this year. (60% required).
The official description:
http://www.gov.bc.ca/referendum_info/first_past_the_post_bc_stv/
How likely do you think it is to pass?
Graham Bignell wrote:
Here in Canada on our left coast BC is holding another referendum on
their election method, in 2005 58% voted for the change, and there is
another vote on May 12 of this year. (60% required).
The official description:
: watermar...@gmail.com
To: election-methods@lists.electorama.com
Subject: Re: [EM] British Colombia considering change to STV
How likely do you think it is to pass?
Graham Bignell wrote:
Here in Canada on our left coast BC is holding another referendum on
their election method, in 2005 58
1. British Colombia considering change to STV (Graham Bignell)
It wasn't hard to find a site campaigning against it:
http://www.nostv.org/count.html
People might also want to warn the BC government about the ugly mess
that they would get themselves into by adopting such a fundamentally
@lists.electorama.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 5:57 PM
Subject: Re: [EM] British Colombia considering change to STV
1. British Colombia considering change to STV (Graham Bignell)
It wasn't hard to find a site campaigning against it:
http://www.nostv.org/count.html
People might also want
, April 29, 2009 5:57 PM
Subject: Re: [EM] British Colombia considering change to STV
1. British Colombia considering change to STV (Graham Bignell)
It wasn't hard to find a site campaigning against it:
http://www.nostv.org/count.html
People might also want to warn the BC government
reform
movements in the world today. Go BC-STV!
Terry Bouricius
- Original Message -
From: Kathy Dopp kathy.d...@gmail.com
To: election-methods@lists.electorama.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 5:57 PM
Subject: Re: [EM] British Colombia considering change to STV
1. British
46 matches
Mail list logo
