If one really wants a two-party system and doesn't want voters to
change that fact then one could ban third parties and accept only two.
That would solve the spoiler problem :-). From this point of view e.g.
the US system is not really intended to be a two-party system but just
a system
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 7:41 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm
km-el...@broadpark.no wrote:
Raph Frank wrote:
If there are 5 seats and you have 20%+ of the votes, you are
guaranteed to get 1 seat under both d'Hondt and Droop.
There is a typo there, I meant 4 seats and 20%+ (I replied in a different
Kristofer Munsterhjelm Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 3:27 PM
Juho wrote:
If one really wants a two-party system and doesn't want voters to change
that fact then one could ban third parties and accept only two. That
would solve the spoiler problem :-).
Who is this one? Since that
James Gilmour wrote:
Kristofer Munsterhjelm Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 3:27 PM
Juho wrote:
If one really wants a two-party system and doesn't want voters to change
that fact then one could ban third parties and accept only two. That
would solve the spoiler problem :-).
Who is this
Raph Frank wrote:
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 7:41 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm
km-el...@broadpark.no wrote:
Raph Frank wrote:
If there are 5 seats and you have 20%+ of the votes, you are
guaranteed to get 1 seat under both d'Hondt and Droop.
There is a typo there, I meant 4 seats and 20%+ (I
Kristofer Munsterhjelm Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 4:34 PM
James Gilmour wrote:
Why in any country that would merit the description democracy would
you want to impose a two-party system when the votes of the voters
showed that was not what they wanted?
That is my question, too.
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm
km-el...@broadpark.no wrote:
The effect is that it is harder for parties to get their first seat.
Parties with 2 or more seats are no affected.
Is that true? Consider a maximally unfair variant, something like
2.999, 3, 5, 7, 9...
Now
On Nov 3, 2009, at 5:27 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Juho wrote:
If one really wants a two-party system and doesn't want voters to
change that fact then one could ban third parties and accept only
two. That would solve the spoiler problem :-).
Who is this one? Since that one is at odds
I commented in another mail that any system where people can change
the system itself can be said to be a democracy. Even a two party
system that bans third parties may still fall within this definition.
Also multi-party systems have the same problem although in a milder
form. The
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 10:51 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
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 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
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
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
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
People keep asking me how to achieve a proportional representation system so
talking out loud...
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
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Kathy Dopp kathy.d...@gmail.com wrote:
In other words, for a multi-seat election where we want proportional
representation, limit voters' choices to a 1st and 2nd choice and
count all voters' 1st choices and transfer excess votes to the voters'
2nd choices and
Kathy Dopp Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 4:45 PM
talking out loud...
You were indeed talking out loud.
From you posts over several years it would APPEAR that you have no real
appreciation of the purpose of a proportional representation
voting system. If you have such an appreciation, it
39 matches
Mail list logo
