[EM] Vote Management
stephane.rouillon at sympatico.ca
Fri Apr 11 15:33:03 PDT 2003
These systems have a spreading support problem because they allow voters to
vote for several candidates (either one after another using residual
redistribution or at the same time when approving multiple candidates).
Single-member methods which allow rallying to cope with vote splitting issues
do not have such problem. Usually instead they have a worst proportional
problem. Again, SPPA is single-membered, totally proportional and preferential
so it allows loosers to regroup.
Please read and comment:
A french version of this text with a slight modfication that garantees many
stable bipartite coalitions for a reduced mandate has been selected for
hearings by the Commission des Institutions de l'Assemblée Nationale du
I bet 20$ (CAN) with anyone that this is the last election held in Quebec
using FPTP as is...
Alex Small a écrit :
> James Gilmour said:
> > This may be a defect, but we must keep it in perspective.
> First, I meant it as a more technical post rather than an opinion post. I
> merely observed that some systems exhibit a particular property while
> others don't, and contemplated the question of whether there were systems
> I hadn't thought of that were free from that property.
> Second, I use the term "party" rather loosely. It could mean a group of
> politicians seeking to maximize the number of people elected from their
> little circle, or it could mean a group of voters with common interests
> trying to maximize the number of candidates representing their interests.
> In a candidate-based system like STV, those voters might cut across
> nominal party lines.
> For instance, there are groups in the US that encourage female candidates
> of any party to run for office, believing that their interests will be
> advanced by the presence of women in elected office, irrespective of
> partisan label. We might analyze a PR system to see how people concerned
> with electing women could maximize their representation, just as we could
> analyze it to see how it affects people concerned with electing Democrats,
> Republicans, environmentalists, civil libertarians, pro-war politicians,
> So, I still maintain that the notion of a party, if applied to the voters
> rather than the politicians, is useful for ANALYZING a PR system. After
> all, the goal of PR (as I understand it) is to accurately reflect the
> spectrum of opinions held by the voters.
> I suspect that it is possible to devise non-list PR systems that don't
> give like-minded voters reason to worry about whether they're spreading
> their support too thinly among candidates or not thinly enough. I suspect
> that Proportional Approval Voting is one such system, and I'm curious if
> other such methods exist.
> Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
More information about the Election-Methods