04/12/02 - Re: Action - Rouillon's contest

[Elisabeth Varin/Stephane Rouillon]

Mr. Davison,

I knew some people would make me regret my contest,
but I was not thinking of you...

Gosh my english is awful.

Yes I like your participation, thanks.

Now for a feasibility reason, I need a minimum of rigour.

First what do you mean by a partisan or non-partisan
election (for me any election is partisan except if
all voters want to submit a blank ballot)?

Second, I am just interested in two problems:

1) A bunch of voters have to select a single option among several
proposals.
I retain your favorite method:

>  **  For Single-Seat elections I recommend Alternative Vote aka
Instant
> Runoff Voting aka IRVing.  In my years of studying election methods I
have
> not been able to find nor design any single-seat method better than
Instant
> Runoff Voting.

I am NOT interested in treating the particular case of:

>  **  For the American Presidential election I recommend My American
> Presidential Election Plan, which keeps the Electoral College but weds
it
> to IRVing in the states.

My personal opinion is that intermediate can only add more discrete
misrepresentation,
but I understand any change would be bounded by the need of a new
agreement to change
your constitution, and it would be a particular case for each country,
and bla bla bla...
I am sure there are many list about this issue. Just start a contest of
your own.

2) A bunch of voters have to fill a chamber of representatives.

Again, I am not interested in considering every special case (congress,
senate, parliament,...).
Obviously because I do not want to have to take in account the
feasibility of dragging
the actual reality of each special case toward the best proposal without
having
all the constitutional experts of all countries running after me.

So YOU can define how areas, districts or districts within districts
will be used.
YOU can match them with the best way to fill a chamber of
representative,
or with all your favorite ways to fill a chamber of representative if
you think
they are all valid. I do not care if the title takes three lines to
obtain
a fully defined proposal.

>From what I have understood (you are making my life miserable)
you would have at least two district representation and
two multi-membered election method, so at least 4 proposals.
Maybe all combinations are not worth.

The more proposal you make the less time the others will take to read
your
proposals...

Finally, you gave a text to define your proposals which is good.
I will try to read and ask for what I do not understand.

I accept vague description only when the result is a single outcome.
"Districts are still managed like before" would be acceptable.
However, if I think the outcome is not well defined,
I will NOT refuse any proposal. I will simply
recommend to members of my group to make their own
mind about it...

Mr. Davison,
Please give me back your proposals for 2).
Please register to the Electoral_systems_designers.

If or when this discussion would "pollute" too much the
EM list, let the owner (I think it is Mr. Lanpher) or any moderator tell
me.

Necessity is the mother of invention,
Stéphane Rouillon.