[EM] List PR

[LAYTON Craig]

Forest,

you wrote:

>This fact suggests also using the d'Hondt count within each list to decide
>which of the list's candidates get to fill the seats won by the list
>(party).
>
>Then if there is only one list, the election will reduce to sequential
>PAV, maintaining the PR status of the election.

d'Hondt isn't possible in the conventional sense, because each candidate
can't win more than one seat, although PAV would be a good method to decide
between the candidates on each list.  I'm not sure why you switched to
sequential PAV.  It doesn't appear to me to be an improvement, but you are
much better qualified than me on this subject, as it's your method and all.

>What about allowing parties to submit multiple lists with the party name
>on them without actually splitting the party?

I would limit parties to just one list.  Keeping the number of lists down
would be difficult enough.  In the last New South Wales state election (my
state) the upper house (elected by list STV) had over 30 or 40 party lists -
and that was with each party being allowed only one list.  Voters often
complain about the size of ballot papers (which can be up to a few feet
across).

Craig