[EM] Candidate List

Wed Dec 29 05:05:04 PST 1999

Dear Demorep,                                   12/29/99

     At one time I carried a PR methods on my Web Site that I called
Candidate List. I presented it in the context of two other list methods:

     1) Voter List     (using STV)
     2) Candidate List (also using STV)
     3) Party List     (closed)

     My thinking was that it would be more democratic if the candidates
ranked the candidates instead of the party leaders, as is the case in
Closed Party List. But, there is really not much improvement in democracy
when we go from Closed Party List to Candidate List. This was the sticking
point of those who commented on my Candidate List method.

     I attempted to compare this Candidate List method to the Preference
Voting of the Cambridge election. At that time Cambridge was still doing
their election by hand and it took them four or more days. If Candidate
List should give the same results then that would be reason to use it in
place of Preference Voting. Candidate List should be able to be worked in
less than one day.
     So, I wrote letters to every candidate in the last election at that
time, asking them to tell me how they voted in the last election. It was to
be a sort of `Exit Poll' for the candidates. I was going to use these
ranking from the candidates as the candidate lists. I already knew the
count of the first choices from the same election. With the lists and the
count I would be able to work the Cambridge election according to the
Candidate List method. Not to be, there was a flaw.
     Only about one quarter of the candidates answered my letters. Of those
that did answer, none told me how they voted. Their response was best
expressed by one who wrote: "The way I voted is as secret as the secret
ballot."
     Candidates are party poopers when it comes to Exit Polls.
     So, that ended my attempt to test the Candidate List method.

     I no longer advocate Candidate List, nor do I have it on my web site.
     People who want election reform want the voters to construct any
lists, and I agree with them.
     For those who are seeking a method that can be worked by hand, Party
List is far more `Low Tech' than Candidate List. We can make it democratic
by making it Open Party List using some PR method to determine the order of
the candidates. A mix of Party List/STV will do just fine.

     I feel the candidates do not want to rank the other candidates. Some
would lose votes if these ranking were made public before the election.
This should not be imposed on the candidates.
     Besides, what are you going to do if all the candidates refuse to rank
more than one candidate - themselves.
     It could happen, it happened to me.

Donald,

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Old text - out of storage:

<H3>Candidate List Method</H3>

Candidate List is the first multi-seat election method on the way up the
ladder to contain the vote transferring feature. Candidate List is the best
method to use for multi-seat districts with less than five members. The
results will be the same as Preference Voting but Candidate List does not
need fractional transfer of ballots. Candidate List is also a good
introduction to Preference Voting.

In explaining this method I will use the example of a city with a ten
member council. Each voter will have only one vote in this council
election. We want ten final candidates that will end up with a ten percent
share each - or nearly ten percent. Any candidate that receives a ten
percent share or more of the votes on the first tally will become one of
the elected candidates. The balance of the ten to be elected will be
determined as votes are transferred from surplus votes over a share and
from the votes of dropped candidates.

The duty of each voter is very simple in this method. They only need to
vote for the candidate of their choice. They should vote for the candidate
that they feel is best for the position even if that candidate is low in
the polls. If their candidate is dropped their vote is not dropped. Their
vote is salvaged and transferred to the next candidate on the list. The
election commission will take care of these details.

The Candidate List Method works as follows: Before the election each
candidate is allowed to submit a public statement to the election
commission designating how any possible surplus votes are to be transferred
to other candidates on his list. The statement should identify the
candidates to receive surplus votes and how the votes are to be
distributed. This statement is to be submitted before the election for two
reasons: One reason is that the voters have a right to know how a
candidate has decided to transfer any surplus votes. The second reason is
so that the election board, and everyone else, can proceed with determining
the winners as soon as the election is over. Yes - this Candidate List
method is so simple that most people will be able to compute the winners
with the use of only paper and pencil and maybe a calculator.

The transferring of the votes will work as follows: In an example of a
council election the candidates are A,B,C,D,E,F,G,etc. Suppose candidate B
plans to transfer any excess votes first to candidate E, then to candidate
C, then to H, then to G. The list of other candidates that candidate B is
supporting becomes E-C-H-G. This produces the label B-E-C-H-G for all the
votes that candidate B will receive in the election.

The first tally is run according to all the candidates. This results in
the total council vote being divided into a number of vote sums. We add the
list of each candidate to these sums. The number of vote sums would be
limited by the number of candidates running for council office. If twenty
were running then only twenty different vote sums would be used - a number
that can be handled without the need of a computer. We now know the total
votes in the race so we can now compute the share value by dividing by the
number of seats to be filled. For this example suppose 100,000 total vote.
That will make the share value for a ten member race to be 10,000 votes.

Suppose candidate B receives 12,840 votes. This vote sum would be recorded
as 12840-BECHG. Because only 10,000 votes are needed to be elected then
the excess 2840 votes will be transferred to candidate E. If candidate E
only needs 2040 additional votes to be elected then 800 votes will be
further transferred to candidate C. If a candidate reaches the required
number of votes to be elected in part of a sum being transferred, the
balance of that sum goes to the next candidate on the label. For now
candidate H does not receive any of the 2840 votes. In the transferring of
votes no votes are to be transferred to candidates that already have a
share, the necessary winning votes, nor to any candidates that have been
dropped. These candidates are to be passed over and the votes transferred
to the next candidate on the label. The transferring of surplus votes is
to start with the candidate with the smallest excess - this rule only
applies to Candidate List. The reason the smallest is to be first is
because some think that the votes that are transferred last have a bit more
power in electing candidates. If so it is only fitting that larger blocs
of voters should receive this edge. It will make a difference in Candidate
List as to which surplus votes are to be transferred first - best to pick
an order and stay with it.

After all surplus votes have been transferred, we may have a few more
candidates with a share, but the number will still be less than ten. The
next step is to drop the one candidate with the lowest vote tally at this
point. The votes of this dropped candidate are transferred the same as the
surplus votes were transferred. This part of the method is called the
run-off feature. Each time we drop a candidate and transfer his votes we
are doing the same as having a runoff. We do not need to call and wait for
an actual election. The list of the candidates will tell us which
candidates are to receive the votes of the dropped candidate.

Suppose candidate C is the lowest with 2000 votes, the total of two sums.
Sum 1200-CBEDG are the votes that candidate C received in the election.
Sum 800-CHG are the votes that were transferred to C from candidate B
above. The smallest vote sum is transferred first. Sum 800-CHG becomes
800-[C]HG and is added to the tally of candidate H. Brackets mean that C is
to be passed over. The label on sum 1200-CBEDG will be changed to
1200-[CBE]DG. C is passed over because of being dropped. B and E are
passed over because they have already been elected. Sum 1200-[CBE]DG is
added to the tally of candidate D. All vote sums of candidate C have been
transferred and we now have a new lowest candidate - whose turn it is to be
dropped. The new lowest is not necessarily the same as the next lowest
from the tally before. The candidates may shift around in position as
votes are transferred. One by one the lowest vote tally candidate is
dropped and votes transferred until we have only ten candidates left.
These ten are the new elected council members provided that all have at
least a simple majority of a share. But - the share at this point is to be
based on the number of votes that survived to the final ten candidates.
This is the same as if people did not vote in a run-off election - the
majoriy requiremant would be based on the people who did vote in the
run-off. In the case of Candidate List the majority requirement is to be
based on the candidates who make enough selections so that votes will
survive to the end. Adjusting the candidates votes because of the new lower
share value would only need to be done if two or more candidates were tied
for the last seat - or if one of the final candidates is below the new
majority requirement. If so - fractional transfer of all votes above the
new share value may break the tie. Or the transfer could put some final
candidate above the new majority requirement - if not then that candidate
is not elected - he did not make the final cut.

Each candidate should be free to decide how his excess votes are to be
transferred. A suggestion of one plan a candidate might use is to have his
excess votes go first to the candidate on his list that has the highest
vote tally at the time. This rewards the candidates that gain the most
votes for the list. It may also yield the maximum number of elected
candidates for their party. I have not checked this out yet. The ability of
the Candidate List method to direct votes can also be used to solve the
question of a vacancy on a sitting council. The votes of each list that
elected this now vacant council person can be directed to whichever
candidate that is nearest to a share of the votes needed to be elected.
This is very simple solution compared to other means of filling a
vacancy.

The policy of the candidates transferring the votes is acceptable. The
voters know ahead of time how the excess votes are to be transferred and
can act accordingly when they vote. The Candidate List Method works as an
extension of representative government. We vote for a candidate to vote
for us, we can also let that candidate transfer part of our vote to another
approved candidate. It is somewhat like candidates running together on a
slate. We must consider the end results. We end up with representation
for everyone. And we get it with a relative easy system to understand and
operate.

<H3>Preference Voting and Candidate List Compared</H3>

Both these methods can yield near one hundred percent representation and
both these methods have their own advantages. Preference Voting is more
democratic because each voter makes their own list of candidates. But it
has been shown from Cambridge real election ballots that the results from
Candidate List would be as good as that from Preference Voting. The
Preference Voting method has a very large number of labels. The splitting
and transferring of these labels will require computers to crunch the
numbers - but, this is the age of computers so why not use them to improve
the election system. On the other hand the math may make the method
unacceptable to the public. The Candidate List Method is not complicated -
it will not require computers beyond the use of computers in current
elections. The Candidate List Method numbers are easy to crunch - the first
tally of the ballots will reduce all the votes down to a number of sums
equal to the number of candidates in the race - everyone - including you -
will be able to figure out the winners by using only the simple tools of
paper and pencil and maybe a calculator. This is a valuable advantage. It
means that the people would be able to check the results and detect any
error made by the Election Officials. For this reason I feel that you
should know about the Candidate List method.(6-14-97)

<CENTER>End of Candidate List Method of Total Voter Representation<P>

   +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
   |                         Q U O T A T I O N                         |
   |  "Democracy is a beautiful thing,                                 |
   |       except that part about letting just any old yokel vote."    |
   |                            - Age 10                               |
   +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+

                            N E W S L E T T E R

                    Worldwide Direct Democracy Newsletter
                     Four Issues per Year by Postal Mail
             Cost per year: Czech Republic 200 Kc,  Europe 12 DM
                          Outside of Europe  $10

              Make check payable to: Mr. Bohuslav Binka
              Mail to:  Mr. Bohuslav Binka
                        Bellova 15
                        Brno 623 00
                        Czech Republic
          - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                         N E W    D E M O C R A C Y
              A Source of Study Material for Political Change

                        http://www.mich.com/~donald
          - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -