[EM] Competitive Districting Rule. "above-the-line" voting

[Chris Benham]

Anthony Duff wrote:

>--- James Gilmour <jgilmour at globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>  
>
>>
>>....the "above-the-line" voting that is used in the
>>Australian Federal Senate elections.  It has
>>perverted STV-PR very severely, so that that implementation is really nothing
>>more than closed list party PR.
>>    
>>
>
>It does sound "like the "above-the-line" voting that is used in the Australian
>Federal Senate elections" and the NSW upper house elections, and other Australian
>elections, where it certainly *seems* to work well, and it is utilised by the vast
>majority.
>
>I know that James Gilmour is philosophically opposed to this party list option
>operating within STV.  He may be right, but I have seen no evidence.  Perhaps I
>haven't known where to look.
>  
>
CB: The system used in the state of South Australia is essentially the 
same as that for the Australian Senate.
High profile independent candidates tend to have "running mates" to pad 
out a list of candidates and look less
forlorn on the ballot paper in comparison with the party "groups".

Last election, a sitting independent candidate (Nick Xenophon) did much 
better than expected with the result that his
flow-on mostly above-the-line preferences elected his running mate (Ann 
Bressington) a complete unknown with some 
hobby horses that  Xenophon  wasn't known for.  If there was no 
above-the-line voting and truncation allowed, I am
sure she wouldn't have been elected.

http://www.seo.sa.gov.au/

Of course with lots of candidates, compulsory voting, and having to 
carefully number all the candidates below the line
(at least in South Australia and for the Senate) versus a single mark on 
the ballot paper for above the line, then it is not
at all surprising that most voters take the much easier option. And with 
the political parties generally happy and most of
the voters apathetic about the "details", then of course  (at least to 
most) the system will "seem" to work well.




>Is the statement "It has perverted STV-PR very severely" based on philosophy,
>impression or evidence?  It is my impression that there is no perversion.
>
CB: The philosophical position that all candidates should have the same 
chance of being elected, i.e. it should the same
amount of trouble for a voter to vote for candidate x as it is to vote 
for candidate y, is IMO very strong (bordering on unassailable).
Living in Australia all my life, my impression is more in line with James's.

> 
>Independent candidates and micro-parties seem overrepresented in the ballot count.
>  
>
CB: By what standard?  Based on what?


Chris Benham

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20060720/da7e5d29/attachment-0003.htm>