[EM] Methods that elect all seats by the same faction:

[Donald Davison]

Methods that elect all seats by the same faction:

Greetings list members,


Gamble wrote:     [on the IRV list]

"Hello Tom and list,

Is this an example of the IRV at large method you were proposing?

<snip>

A and B -both candidates of the same faction are elected."

David Gamble

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Donald here,

Of course, both seats are filled by the same faction.

IRV-at-Large will allow the same faction to elect both seats.

Pluralty-at-Large will also allow the same faction to elect both seats.

And, conducting two elections from the same field of candidates in one
district will also allow the same faction to elect both seats.  (aka
Kislanko's Folly)

Or, conducting two elections from two fields of candidates in one district
will also allow the same faction to elect both seats.

Craig's Folly will elect both seats from the same faction.

Dan's Folly will elect both seats from the same faction.

And, below is a recent one from the EM list, it also will allow both seats
to be filled by the same faction.  Call it Kislanko's Folly

None of these methods are proportional.

The more election methods change the more they remain the same.

Some people start by wanting something better than Plurality-at-Large, but
they end up with something that is the same as Plurality-at-Large.  Go
figure.

A rose by any other name will still be a rose.

A bad election method by any other name will still be a bad election method.

Donald,

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Paul Kislanko" <kislanko at airmail.net> wrote on the EM list:

>A theoretical, though impractical way to handle this would be as follows:
>
>Have independent ballot-choices for place 1, place 2, etc. which each allow
>the ranking of all candidates. The voter may choose to rank A>B>C>D... in
>every position, in which case their "vote" degenerates into some variation
>of IRV, but this would allow the voter to provide more information if she so
>chooses. To count the votes:
>
>1. Determine the place-1 winner (by whatever method you like).
>
>2. Remove the place-1 winner from every position in all the place-2 ballots,
>with lower-ranked candidates "inheriting" the vacated rankings and calculate
>the place-2 winner.
>
>Repeat step 2 (remove the place-2 winner from all the place 3 ballots, etc.)
>until all seats have been filled.
>
>There are circumstances where this approach works well, but I am not sure
>what all the ramifications would be depending upon the method chosen to pick
>a winner at each step.
>


This method is not proportional.

A simple majority of the voters will be able to elect every seat.

Donald