jarmyta at antioch-college.edu
Sun Aug 29 17:20:47 PDT 2004
>No, slates are NOT a good idea in any STV method. Slates, and all the
>party control implied by
>"slates", run counter to all that STV stands for.
Okay, first of all let me be clear about exactly what I'm suggesting.
Let's assume that we are using some kind of computerized system.
Basically, I imagine that you would have a (scrollable, searchable...)
list of candidates on one part of the screen, and on another part of the
screen you would develop your own rankings. You could take candidates from
the candidate list and insert them into your own rankings at any point.
Once a candidate is inserted in your rankings, you can move them around as
much as you like, pick them up and drop them at any other point. Once
you're totally satisfied with your own rankings, then you can hit a button
to confirm and cast your vote.
A voter can totally ignore the slate option and just rank the candidates
whom they choose to rank, in whatever order they like.
Or, at any point in the ranking, a voter can insert a party slate. That
basically puts all of the candidates from the slate into the insert point,
except for candidates from the candidates from that slate which you have
already put into your rankings. Perhaps when you enter a slate, all the
additional candidates from the slate should be initially tied for the same
rank, and remain tied until you move some of them up or down.
(Ballots which give multiple candidates an equal top-choice ranking at
any given stage of the count should be treated as fractional votes, such
that the sum of the fractions equals the remaining power of the ballot
(less than or equal to 1).)
Once you have inserted a slate, you can go ahead and continue to change
the ranking of the candidates as much as you like. You can knock some of
the candidates to the bottom of the list, move one candidate up here,
another down there... in the end, the candidates need not be in a big
bunch; they can be scattered throughout your rankings. The slate insert
just serves as a starting point.
So, basically I'm just thinking of this as a shortcut which can get
people started in producing their ordered list, and in making the number
of candidates less daunting.
I think that STV is much better than party list, and I would not want to
subvert STV to become the equivalent of party list. I just see slates as a
user interface shortcut. Maybe I shouldn't even be calling them slates,
since what I'm proposing differs from a slate in that the candidates from
a slate are not initially ordered. Anyway, this is what I'm proposing.
James Gilmour, and others, what do you think?
More information about the Election-Methods