[EM] FWD - different election methods

[Donald E Davison]

  ------------ Forwarded Letter ------------
From: "Nat Lerner" <nl0916 at sprynet.com>
To: <donald at mich.com>
Subject: Fw: Seeking the best of all PR systems: GSTV, STV+,STV(+), STV(x2)
and GSTV(LB)
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 20:58:59 -0700

Dear Donald
I enjoy your critques against STV even if some of them are a little
far-fetched. I personally prefer the least wasted votes and the greatest
proportionality, so my criticism of MMP is the artificial threshold that is
used in New Zealand and Gemany. However, as you may know, STV is very
popular among PR advocates in the USA and especially in California where I
live. You may find this article that attempts to build a version of STV
that closely resembles party list/MMP of some interest.

----------
> From: Nat Lerner <nl0916 at sprynet.com>
> To: original recipient
> Subject: Seeking the best of all PR systems: GSTV, STV+,STV(+), STV(x2)
and GSTV(LB)
> Date: Saturday, October 09, 1999 10:09 PM
>
> In the last edition of the NCCPR newsletter, we listed the three standard
> methods of PR as it could apply to the 80-member California State
Assembly
> (Statewide/regional List, Statewide/regional MMP and STV (Choice Voting)
in
> multiple multi-member districts - say, 20 5-member districts). Both List
> and MMP have certain practical advantages (more proportional, less risk
of
> quirky results, no change to voting equipment required) yet because of
the
> prevailing "anti-party" views of the public (encouraged by the appalling
> lack of public involvement in parties), we may see STV with its
> 'non-partisan' feature being preferred AND thus making our sell more
> difficult.
>
> I considered the question: How can we improve on STV to make it more
> proportional (i.e. less wasted  or undervalued votes) and avoid quirky
> results (i.e. party with more votes gets less seats as rarely, but can
> happen). The result was a series of potential solutions - each with its
> advantages and disadvantages. There is a "natural progression" as you
will
> see. I claim no originality for these ideas, except the last two, and as
> you see they are derived from others.
>
> NOTE: The preferred option is at the end
>
> 1) Global STV (GSTV)
> This is Hare's original concept - one single multi-member district. For
> California, this would mean an 80 member district.
> Advantage: The perfect non-party PR system, minimum wasted votes, no
quirky
> results due to district boundaries.
> Disadvantages: The ballot would be too long, unless you allowed
write-ins.
> Vote truncation would be massive. Candidates who campaign statewide (and
> have the money to do so) would benefit because they would pick up lower
> rankings while others would not because the voters did not know about
them!
>
> Comment: In reality, there is a limit to how far people can or want to
rank
> candidates - deciding what that limit is probably very important.
>
> 2) STV+
> The name is a variant of the Jenkins Commision's AV+ to indicate STV with
a
> second vote to add (the +) list members in compensatory fashion, just
like
> MMP. Unlike MMP, however, the number of list members will not need to be
as
> numerous, since 'rough' proportionality would be achieved with STV (at
> least among the larger parties). This was first mentioned to me by my ERC
> colleague, Lowell Manning, as an improvement on MMP.  A suggested model
for
> California would be 20 3-member districts and 20 list members.
> Advantage: Like MMP, minimum wasted votes, no quirky results due to
> district boundaries.
> Disadvantages: The parties will still need to provide a list and it is
the
> party involvement in selection that is the chief complaint against Party
> List and MMP.
> Comment: This is a practical response to make STV more proportional
without
> being unwieldy.
>
> 3) STV(+)
> This is a single vote variant on STV+ based on the "best losers" model of
> MMP described by the 1971 Hansard Committee and later mentioned in the NZ
> Royal Commission's report of 1986. In this model, each party's list would
> be determined by the votes obtained by candidates who were not elected on
> the last count in each district. A suggested model for California would
be
> 20 3-member districts and 20 list members. Advantage: Like STV+, minimum
> wasted votes, no quirky results due to district boundaries. No party
> control on the ordering of the list.
> Disadvantages: The list members might appear to be "lesser" members due
to
> their district vote status (this was a complaint by the Royal
Commission).
> The number of seats assigned to each party would have to be based on
first
> choice votes (OK with MMP, since there only IS first choice votes) which
> may not reflect the voter's wishes ( a Libertarian might vote for a
> suitable Republican first but would want his 'party' vote to go to the
> Libertarians).
> Comment: This is a stepping stone to the next two options.
>
> 4) STV(x2)
> This is another single vote variant on STV. In this model, party names
are
> listed on the ballot as well as individual candidates, so that when a
voter
> has listed all the candidates she is interested in, she can list the
> party/parties she prefers. When a vote is transferred (by elimination or
> surplus) to the party vote, it is split among all remaining candidates of
> that party.
> This is a two round system. Those candidates not elected on the last
count
> in each district are thrown into a second round multi-member-district -
> with any surplus votes gained from the winning candidates in each
district.
>  Votes are counted and transferred as per normal STV to elect the
> second-round members  A suggested model for California would be 20
3-member
> districts and 20 second-round members.
> Advantage: Minimum wasted votes, minimizes quirky results due to district
> boundaries. No party control on the ordering of the list.
> Disadvantages: There is a need to have parties. The second round members
> might appear to be "lesser" members due to their district vote status. A
> popular candidate in a low-turnout district would be elected with far
less
> votes than in a high-turnout district or the second-round and could be
> subject to vote dilution claims.
> Comment: This is a stepping stone to the next  option.
>
>
> 5) Global STV/Limited Ballot - GSTV(LB)
> As in STV(x2), party names are listed on the ballot as well as individual
> candidates, so that when a voter has listed all the candidates she is
> interested in, she can list the party/parties she prefers. When a vote is
> transferred (by elimination or surplus) to the party vote, it is split
> among all remaining candidates of that party.
> Unlike above, this is a one round system. The suggested model is 16 5
> member districts - but other mixes will work, however, ballots are NOT
> counted at the district level, but, like the original Global STV, at the
> State level.
> The quota will be 1/81 of all votes in the State  + 1.
> Advantage: Minimum wasted votes, minimizes quirky results due to district
> boundaries. No party control on the ordering of the list. No second round
> members. No advantages to voters in low turnout districts. Truly each
vote
> will have the same weight as any other regardless of district or turnout.
> Disadvantages: There is still a need to have parties. The actual number
of
> votes needed to be elected will be higher than at present (because there
> are less wasted votes!)
> Comment: The district-ballot size will determine how much individual
choice
> voters will have before their party preference is used.
>
>
end

   +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
   |                         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
          - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -