[EM] David Catchpole and his STV/MMP hybrid

[David Catchpole]

Well- Simply consider MMP, only using STV (with an option to the voter of
a full list of candidates or a list of parties for the at-large election)
rather than FPTP and list apportionment. Where there are n electorate
members, there are n-1 at-large members. Votes which go to electing
electorate members are devalued a'la Meek, etc. and the votes then counted
for the at-large members.

The derivation of this which I advocate for my own State house (we're
unicameral) will probably be a little bit more offensive to you. It
involves basically everything above, only with a _third_ part of the
ballot listing parties with "who is your choice to head government?" A
winner of this third part is found and during the at-large stage voters
who voted for this winner are counted first, ignoring candidates other
than those of the winning party and its designated allies, until it (and
its allies) has a majority of the chamber or votes run out. The rest of
the at-large seats are then selected as per usual.

On Sat, 23 Oct 1999, Donald E Davison wrote:

> Greetings,
> 
> David Catchpole wrote:
> >You can have an STV/MMP hybrid, you know. In fact, that's my current
> >preferred system for legislatures.
> 
> Dear David Catchpole,
> 
>      Good, finally we agree on something.
> 
>      May we see a one page outline of your preferred system??
> 
> Thank you,
> Donald
> 
> 
>